With the blessings of Gurudev the second part of our publication `First
Steps to Jainism' is before the readers. It may be recalled that the First Part
was printed in 1984 with a second edition in 1989. Since then we have been
working on the second part which has indeed taken a long time.

This was partly due the complex nature of the subjects dealt with in
this part like `The Doctrine of Karma' and `The Central Philosophy of
Jainism-Anekantavada-specially the latter. Partly the delay was due the fact
that we wanted to explain the subjects in detail to make the book comprehensive
and that tooin simple language.
However, the subject of `Anekantavada' or the Theory of Non-One-sidedness has
become so expansive that it has been difficult to keep up with the latest
developments, not to talk of explaining the same. Actually with the researches
of eminent scholars like Dr. D.S. Kothari and Prof. P.C. Mahalanobis the scope
of Anekantavada and Syadvada has become very wide, being corroborated by the
conclusions of the latestdevelopments
in physics and statistics. Therefore, even experts in these subjects can not
throw proper light on the findings of the great men mentioned, because to
understand the implications fully one has to have not only the scientific
knowledge but also knowledge of the philosophical subjects. Such combinations
are very rare indeed. We have, therefore, decided to give the articles of the
abovenamed scholars in original in the Appendices. At the same time the demand
for the second part has been increasing and enquiries were received as to when
this part will be out. Therefore, we have given in the concerned chapters in this
book in simple language whatever we understood about these complicated subjects
with apologies to our readers who find some grey areas therein.

From the above it will be clear that true to its name, the chapters in
this book can be considered first steps to the storehouse of knowledge of the
subjects covered. However, after reading the chapters the readers will not
remain completely unfamiliar with the subjects and the terms employed; and to
some extent their thirst formore
information on the subjects may be aroused. Even this will be a source of
satisfaction to the authors. For those who are keen for more knowledge, there
is abundant literature available on the subjects, some indications whereof will
be available in the appendices,which
are also scholarly treatises on the subjects. Thus this book will provide not
only elementary knowledge as first steps to the subjects, but will also
supplysome advanced knowledge thereof,
and the matter included herein may prove of interest to the laymen as well as the
scholars.

For obvious reasons this book should be read in continuation of Part I,
in which indications were given about its contents. However, Part I dealt with
the basic information about distinctive features of Jain religion, as also the
path prescribed thereunder for alround development of the human personality,
man's place in the universe and his duties to himself and his fellow creatures.
We give in the following paragraphs the scope of chapters in this book in
brief:

The Doctrine of Karma :

In the first chapter of this book we have dealt with `The Doctrine of
Karma'. In Jain metaphysics Doctrine of Karma occupies the same supreme place
as God occupies elsewhere as the main moving force. Though the concept of Karma
is accepted in all systems of Indian religions "in no other system,
perhaps, has Karma been taught to be of such concrete, realistic, physical
nature," as in Jainism, where Karma have special significance as Material
particles with psychophysical qualities and distinctive powers of being
attached with the soul and giving results. In this chapter an attempt has been
made to describe the Karma in their various aspects and varieties. We have
drawn heavily on Dr. H.V. Glasenapp's research work `The Doctrine of Karma in
Jain Philosophy' which was published in Germany in the beginning of this
century and was published in India in English in 1942. It is indeed an
exhaustive treatise on the subject of Karma and an example of German
scholarship and painstaking study. The degree of Ph.D. was granted to the
author in 1914 for this work by the Bonn University. We have thought it fit to
include in the appendices not only the Preface to the German edition by Dr.H.V.
Glasenapp (as App. A), but also the Foreword to the English edition by Rev. Dr.
R.Zimmermann of St. Xavier College, Bombay (as App. B), which we found very
useful, as well as interesting, and think that these will be liked by the
readers. It may also help in charting further studies of the subject as Dr.
Glasenapp has given useful information about the books on the subject, and
contents of the Karmagranthas.

Stages of Progress of the Soul - The Fourteen Gunasthan :

In this chapter the Jain path of progress of the soul on the way to
salvation is indicated whereon the fourteen Gunasthana form the fourteen
milestones. This shows that as the Karma load of the soul reduces, the soul
rises on the scale of spiritual development and progresses on the path of
liberation. This chapter is, therefore, directly related to the 'Doctrine of
Karma. Similarly the next chapter deals with The Five Bodies, the human soul
acquires from time to time since times immemorial. These are also related to
the Doctrine of Karma, but because of the fact that they are matters of common
interest brief separate mention has been made of the same, as the Karma are
also attached to the soul in the form of Karma body (Karman Sharir).

The Central Philosophy of Jainism - Anekantavada :

This is the chapter dealing with the philosophical contribution of
Jainism which is being supported by latest findings by scientists ranging from
mathematicians to physicists. Actually this contribution of Jain philosophy
contains seeds of synthesis of conflicting views and proves that the things
which appear contradictory are actually complementary. This is also the latest
finding of"The Principle of
Complementarity which we owe principally to Niel Bohr - perhaps the most
significant and revolutionary conceptof modern physics".(Extract from Dr. D.S. Kothari's article `Modern Physics and Syadvada'
given in the App. C) As stated earlier the scope of Anekantavada (including
Nayavada and Syadvada which have been dealt with in this chapter) is expanding
with modern findings of eminent scholars. Thus, interesting light is thrown by
Dr. B.K. Matilal in his lectures delivered at and published by L.D.
Institution, Ahemdabad (which one can read with benefit),thatAnekantavada is a sub-variety of Vibhajyavadda like Buddha's Middle way.
The latter however, is only analytical and can be termed the `Exclusive
Middle'; while Mahavira's Anekanta should be called `Inclusive Middle' with
analysis as well as synthesis. Further the learned Doctor mentions that the
standpoints or Naya were classified into various types for taking into account
the different philosophical views prevalent in classical India. The vindication
of these age old principles by advancement in science only goes to prove that
the great seers-the Jinas-had perceived the eternal truths and one should
approach these with open mind and reverence instead of criticizing and scoffing
at them as has been the case at times. Special mention may be made of the
following appendices on the subject which we have included for the reasons
given in the book :

In this last chapter we give the Jain view about the solution of the
age old riddle whether man's destiny is supreme or his effort (Takdir vis-à-vis
Tadbir). True to its Anekantavadi tradition Jainism gives a satisfactory answer
to the problem which we hope will be of interest to the readers.

We close with our grateful thanks to all those who have helped us in
this work, special mention may be made of Shriman Johari Mal ji Sahib Parakh
and Dr. Sagar Mal ji Sahib of Varanasi whom we consulted from time to time. The
authors of books and articles from which we have drawn heavily deserve our
gratitude. These include Dr. B.K. Matilal, Dr. H.V. Glasenapp., Dr. R.
Zimmermann S.J., Dr.. D.S. Kothari, Prof. J.B.S. Haldane, Dr. P.C. Mahalanobis,
Dr. Nathmal Tatia and others.

Special mention must also be made with our grateful thanks and
acknowledgements for the following publications, individuals and institutions
whose contribution we have included in this compilation which we think will add
to the utility of this book :-

The article `Modern Physics and Syadvada' by Dr. D.S. Kothari
has been supplied to us by his son Dr. L.K. Kothari, Jaipur.

Dr. Prakash Rao, editor 'Sankhya' has supplied the two articles
by Dr. P.C. Mahalanobis and Dr. J.B.S. Haldane titled `The Indian-Jaina
Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to Probability' and 'The Syadvada System of
Predication' respectively. These were published in Sankhya (1954) Vol. 18 at
pp. 183-194 and pp.195-200 respectively and the Indian Statistical Institute
Calcutta has permitted us to publish the same.

Prof. R. Zimmermann's Foreword and Dr. H.V. Glasenapp's Preface
to the German edition of his book 'Doctrine of Karma in Jain Philosophy' has
become available to us from the English translation thereof, published in 1942,
by the Trustees of Bai Vijibai, Jivanlal Panalal Charity Fund, Bombay.

Dr. Nathmal Tatia has permitted the publication of his article
`Anekanta'.

We again express our gratitude and reverence to Gurudev who inspired us
to undertake these studies, and who is, unfortunately, not with us to bless
this effort, as he blessed Pt. I.

ASOO LAL SANCHETI

M. Com. LL.B., I.R.A.S.

Retd. Financial Adviser & Chief Accounts Officer,

Indian Railways

Former Member, Accounts & Finance,

Rajasthan State Electricity Board

MANAK MAL BHANDARI

B. Com

‘ALKA’ D-121

Shastri Nagar,

Jodhpur (Raj.) 342 003.

Divali, 1994.

Contents

Preface

The Doctrine of Karma.

Stages of Progress of the Soul Due to Development of its
Qualities - The Fourteen Gunasthanas.

The Five Bodies.

The Central Philosophy of Jainism - Anekantavada- The
Doctrine of Non-one-sidedness

Freedom of will - The five samvay.

Appendices

(A) Preface by Dr. Glasenapp to his book ‘Doctrine of Karma
in Jain Philosophy’.

(B) Foreword by Prof. R. Zimmermann to the book ‘Doctrine
ofKarma in Jain Philosophy’.

The Doctrine of Karma is a direct outcome of the extension of the
age-old and well-established principle "as you sow, so you reap" to
the spiritual sphere. In other words, this doctrine is nothing but an extension
of the physical phenomenon observed in every day experience in nature that
every action has a reaction, every effect has a cause and vice versa.

According to the Karma doctrine the course of life of every living
being here and hereafter is determined by his Karma or his deeds and a pious
life leads to comforts, contentment and general well-being in the present life
and re-birth in higher and better forms of existence. Evil actions result in
birth in lower forms of existence in future life and unhappiness or misery,, in
the present existence. In short Karmavada may summarised as the “theory of
inevitable consequences of one's actions."This doctrine seems to have developed along with other doctrines
about the course of events or creation. These include Kalvad or doctrine of
time (treating time as a determining agent), Svabhav-vad or doctrine of Nature
(which held the nature of things as sole determinant), theory of
pre-destination (holding destiny as the prime factor) etc. These are proposed
to be discussed separately in this book. Here it will be sufficient to mention
that in Jain thought, true to its non-one-sided (Anekantvadi) approach, due
importance is given to all these factors as agents determining the course of
life along with the doctrine of Karma.. However, prime place is given to Karma
doctrines as it involves elements of freedom of will of the individual,
accountability for one's acts or deeds (Karma) and is living or active as
against the inert and passive nature of other factors like time, nature and
others.

The Indian thinkers universally accepted and adopted the Karma doctrine
in all the major religious systems originating in India viz. Hinduism, Buddhism
and Jainism. Though the emphasis varied, all these major systems gave the
KarmaDoctrine prime place in the
scheme of things spiritual, pertaining to each system.

What is a bit surprising is that the doctrine of Karma, did not get the
place it deserved in the three western religions viz., Christianity, Judaism
and Islam, Though it is said that prophet Mohammed warned his daughter that she
will be judged by God, on the day of reckoning, by her deeds in her life-time
and not because she was the prophet's daughter. May be the concept of an
omnipotent God-head did not permit acceptance of the due importance of the
Karma Doctrine.

However, nowhere else except in Jainism is so much importance attached
to the principle of Karma. Coupled with the concept of soul and its
transmigration in a continuing cycle of deaths and re-births Jainism lays down
that it is one's Karma which primarily regulate the future destiny and course
of life of all souls. In this concept there is no place for an all
powerfulGod who interferes with, nay
determines, the destinies of living beings as in some other religions and
beliefs. As already stated in Part I Jainism does not believe in such an all
powerful God. The position occupied by God in other religions and faiths as an
arbiter of destinies of beings is held by Karma of the beings in Jain
Philosophy. In this process the individual being is raised to a high pedestal,
capable of determining his destiny and competent to write one's fate.

Also the disputes and doubts surrounding the concept of an all powerful
and jealous God are resolved as if by one stroke. At the same time the Karma
concept and belief in the same- encourages and enforces an ethical behaviour in
its believers. This is not on account of the fear of an Almighty God (whom no
one has seen) but for the simple reason that one will have to face the
consequences of one's behaviour - good or bad or indifferent - in this world or
hereafter. Moreoverthe Karma doctrine
providessatisfactory explanation for
the otherwise inexplicable divergence in existence viz., poverty v/s
prosperity, health v/s sickness, happiness v/s misery, which strikes one at
every stage and which is unjustifiably ascribed to an almighty God when these
are the inevitable consequences of the beings own actions.

Against the brief background above, we take up detailed discussion of
Karma doctrine in Jain philosophy. The meaning of the word Karma commonly
accepted in Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. is activity, work, deed or act. It also
implies sacrifices or yagyas performed as a partof Brahamanic rituals as well as the prescribed formalities like
fasting and other forms of worship called Karma-Kand.

However in Jain philosophy every form of activity in thought, word or
deed with any of the passions (anger, pride, deceipt and greed) together with
the resultant material particles (Pudgals), which can get attached to the soul,
are covered in the definition of Karma. Thus Karma in Jain scheme is a
"complexes of very fine matter, imperceptible to senses, which enters into
the soul, causing great changes in it."This can do with some elucidation, though it may involve a little
repetition or recapitulation.

According to Jain philosophy the beginningless, endless and uncreated
univere consists of six substances viz. (i) Living being (Jeeva); (ii) Matter
(Pudgal); (iii) Time (Kaal); (iv) Space (Akash) (v) Medium of rest (Adharma)
and (iv) Medium of Motion (Dharma). Of these only the living beings or souls
have consciousness and possess the potential of infinite knowledge, infinite
perception, bliss etc. Actually the liberated souls possess these qualities
and, therefore, are considered the perfect souls the Siddhas. These powers in
caseof the unliberated or mundane
souls arefettered due to their
association with the other substance-matter which is non-conscious or
non-living but possesses form and is the only substance with form out of the
six substances.

The association of the formless or shapeless living souls with the
non-living and tangible matter is beginningless (but not endless as we shall
see). This beginningless association is an established concept and an accepted
fact in Jainism like other similar accepted fact of uncreated beginningless
universe. This association is constantly renewing itself (till complete
separation form the soul i.e. Mukti) through the release of old matter and
absorption of fresh matter by the soulbecause of the acts and deeds of the living beings. That element of the
matter which is so associated with the souls or living beings is known as the
Karma Pudgal or the Karmic matter and is included in the wider meaning of the
word Karma. Thus when it is said that one is engaged in the Karma of walking or
talking it broadly implies that one is performing the act or activity of
walking or talking and also absorbing the resultant karma matter into his soul.
strictly speaking the word karma should imply action only and the attachment of
matter with the soulshould correctly be
expressed by the word Karma Bundh or Karma Bondage. However, the fact remains
that in common parlance the term karma is used to denote the actions and also
their consequences by way of Karma Bondage. This has at times resulted in
misunderstanding, which is explained at the cost of a little diversion.

While comparing the message of the Bhagwat Geeta withJain teachings it is usually said that while
the former teachers activity or karma, the latter is against Karma or action.
This is hardly justified. Jainism does not teach inaction or non-activity
because it is simply not possible to forgo actions in one form or another as
long as one lives. This has been clearly stated in the beginning of Acharang
Sutra, one of the earliest and most authentic compilation of the Jain canon.
What is however, prescribed in Jain teaching is to avoid Karma Bondage or Karma
Bandh which is loosely interpreted as Karma or activity. Actually there is
considerable similarity in the message of the Geeta and the Jain prescription
for the pursuit of a correct course of life. The former teaches action without
worrying about the result "Karmanyevadhikaraste, maphaleshu Kadachan"
in Jainism also we find exhortation about action with vigilance or Karma with
Jayana i.e. without passions, at the same time maintaining equanimity or
indifference while accepting the result, as this will not result in Karma
Bondage. After this slight diversion we take up the questions about the Karma
Principle, that naturally arise :

1.What
is the Karma matter or Karma pudgala and

2.How
does it get attached with or detached from the soul.

Let us take these questions one by one to throw light on the subject of
Karma.

What is the Karma Matter or Karma Pudgal ?

We have seen that "Matter", the only substance in the
universe with form consists of infinite number of Pudgals-indivisible particles
of matter-very much smaller than the atom. They are so fine that in each part
of space infinite number of combinations of the Pudgals or Skandhas can be
contained in their subtle (Sukshama) form. Each of these pudgals has at least
four qualities i.e. touch, taste, smell and colour.

There are many categories of clusters of these pudgals called varganas.
These varganas are of eight types (with many subtypes) like Bhasha vargana or
category of speech, Sharir vargana (category of body), Mano vargana (mind
category) etc. One of such categories of pudgals is Karma varagana i.e. pudgals
that have the potentiality of becoming Karma matter of different types and of
getting attached to the soul. It is this particular category of matter called
Karma Vargana which is absorbed by the contaminated and thus material soul due
to its activity and passions and is converted into Karma body (Karma Shareer)
just as an oil lamp absorbs oil and converts it into a flame due to its heat.
It has been mentioned that it is the contaminated soul that absorbs Karma
matter. This needs to be elucidated. Essentially the soul is pure consciousness
and is absolutely non-contaminated and non-material the liberated souls
(Siddhas) are like this. Such pure souls cannot be contaminated by Karma-as
they are two categories distinctly separate from each other i.e. one is living
being (Jeeva) and other is non-living being (ajeeva). But due to the
beginningless contamination with matter (Karma) the soul's pure non-material
form has also become partly material and, therefore, it may further be
contaminated. As stated earlier pudgals joining the soul are in the form of
Karma Vargana each with infinite number of pudgals in their fine (sookshama)
form and constitute the Karma body or Karma Shareer of the soul. These Karma
varganas are the finest (sookshama) of all other varganas, which means that
while they have the largest number of Pudgals, yet they occupy the least space
(as explained in a separate chapter).

All the Karma matter associated with a soul form the soul's Karma body
(Karma Shareer) which is one of the five categories of bodies ofthesouli.e.

1.Audarik,

2.Vakriya,

3.Aharak,

4.Tejasand

5.Karman
(to be discussed separately).

Here it will suffice to say that Karma body:

1.has
beginningless association with the soul which is renewing itself by shedding
old Karma and acquiring new ones and which can and finally end only upon the
complete liberation of the soul,

2.it
consists of the highest number or infinite pudgals and is the finest (sookshma)
of all the other bodies,

3.it
is not stopped by any obstruction,

4.it
always travels with the soul on its transmigration from one life to another and
finally,

5.it
determines the destiny and course of life of the soul in the world and the next
which is, good, bad or indifferent depending on the nature of the Karma
body-Karman Shareer-accompanying the soul and giving results.

How does Karma matter get attached with the soul ?

After dealing with the Karma matter, we come to the second and more
important question of the nature of attachment of Karma matter with the soul.
This issue is the core or heart of Jain thought and to some extent it has been
dealt with in Pt. I while dealing with Seven Fundamentals. However, that discussion
was primarily from the point of view of the soul and its journey in this world.
We shall now deal with this subject from the point of view of Karma which is
the subject under discussion.

The process of attachment of Karma (it should imply Karma matter) with
the soul can be divided into two parts (i) entrance or introduction of Karma
into the soul, (ii) attachment proper or retention of Karma by the soul. The
former is called Asrava or Influx and the letter is known as Bandh or Bondage
as they denote entry into and the binding of the soul by the Karma
respectively.

Entrance or introduction of the Karma into the soul ?

All Influx or Asarva of Karma into the soul may or may not be followed
by or become bondage or bandh, but bondage is always preceded by Influx. In
higher stages of spiritual development or progress of the soul (Gunasthans to
be dealt with separately) when the soul is passionless, the Karma entering the
soul leave it simultaneously, staying just for one Samay (smallest division of
time), which need not constitute bondage. However, all bondage i.e. bandh of
soul by Karma must be preceded by entrance or influx or Asrava as without such
introduction or influx the Karma cannot bind the soul. The line of distrinction
between the two is very fine so much so that in its broader concept bondage
includes influx and the causes for the latter (influx) are also included in the
list of causes of the former (bondage). This will be clearer as we continue
this discussion. Let us first discuss the influx, introduction or Asrava of
Karma into the soul.

The unliberated worldly (Sansari) or contaminated (with Karma) soul is
undergoing constant vibrations which are due to the effect of the old Karma
already attached to the soul. These vibrations in the soul space are called
YOGA-distinct from the other meanings of word YOGA like meditation,
concentration or addition. In the external world they are manifested through
the body that the soul may be occupying. The Yoga is of three types depending
on the results of the vibration of the soul in (i) body, (ii) speech or (iii)
mind. In case vibrations result in activity of the body it is called Kaya or
Body Yoga, if it manifests itself in activity of the speech or speaking it is
called speech or Vachan Yoga and if it results in thought process it is termed
Mano Yoga or Mind Yoga. It is because of these vibrations of the soul, termed
three types of Yogas as mentioned above, that disturbance is created in the
area of influence of the soul and body (it occupies) in the world. The
potential Karma pudgal (Karma varganas) out of the other infinite number of
pudgals in the world are attracted into the soul as a result of these
vibrations and Yoga and this is termed as Influx or Asrava.

This Asrava or Influx due to the three types can be good and beneficent
(Shubh or Punya) or bad and sinful (Ashubh or Paap). This is determined by the
intention behind the activity of body, speech or mind. If the intention is bad
being coloured by the four passions, viz., Anger, Pride, Deceit and Greed, it
shall lead to sinful or bad (Ashubh) Yoga and Asrava and if the intent is good
marked by restraint over these passions it will be good or beneficent. As
examples we give the following acts which are called good or shubh or Punya
Ashrava or beneficent Influx :

1.Good
body yoga - Charity, restraint, service.

2.Good
speech yoga - Truthful, sweet conversation.

3.Good
mind yoga - Wishing well of others in thought, good meditation.

The following are the examples of bad or Ashubh Yoga or Pap Asharava :

1.Bad
body yoga - Violence, theft etc.

2.Bad
speech yoga - Falsehood or harsh or hurtful talk.

3.Bad
mind yoga - Thinking ill of others.

Viewed from another angle it is the attachment or hatred and otherwise
involvement with things worldly i.e. Raga (attraction) or Dwesha (aversion)
that are the villains of the piece as they lead to the four passions. It is due
to the presence of these that Yoga or Asrava of Karma becomes bondage and
without these it does not. When it does not result in Bondage it is called
Iryapathic Asrava i.e. non-affecting Karma which go out of the soul as they
come in. The Karma influx accompanied by attraction or aversion is called
Samprayik Asrava or affecting influx which attach the Karma pudgal with the
soul body and that results in bondage of the soul. The causes of such
connecting Influx-Samprayiak Asrava is given as under though they are all
covered in the broader scope of Raag and Dwesh activities :

To summarise, a soul which is acting through thought, word or deed
under the influence of Raga and Dwesh or Passions (Kashya) will attract Karma
(Ashrava) which will stick to it just like dust blown by wind sticks to a wet
or oily piece of cloth, and will become bondage (Bundh). This type of Ashrava
is of the nature of affecting or Samprayik Karma ashrava. Another soul which is
also so acting but without Raag-Dwesh or Passions (Kashaya) may attract Karma
but they will not stick to the soul just as a wooden ball striking against a
dry wall does not stick to it but falls apart, and are known as Non-affecting
or Iryapathic Karma. To some extent this touches upon the second and main part
of our enquiry i.e. "How does karma matter gets attached and retained by
the soul" which we can take up now in detail.

Attachment proper or retention of Karma by the soul

To put the record straight it might appear incorrect to say that Karma
get attached or retained by the soul as the Karma as we have seen are
non-conscious, non-living matter and, therefore, the passive agent. Actually,
it is the living soul that is the conscious and active agent which by its
vibrations through the acts of body, speech and mind attracts and retains the
Karma and binds itself. However, it has to be remembered, that the soul is not
a completely free agent (though at times it is) and is acting under the
influence of past Karma with which it has beginningless attachment, and which
are in turn guiding its activities as they come to fruition. Further, though
the Karma are considered lifeless and non-conscious, due to their attachment
with the soul they acquire conscious character and give results. Similarly,
though the soul is invisible shape-less entity, due to the close association
with Karma it acquires a Karmic body which is with shape and form and which is
its constant companion.

It has been noted above that due to Yoga-activities of the soul of
three types (body, speech and mind), disturbance is caused in the material
world or Pudgal which are attracted to the soul and which get converted into
Karma. It has also been mentioned that these Pudgal or Karma-vargana get
attached to the soul due to presence of the four passions, kashyas i.e. Anger,
Pride, Deceipt and Greed alongwith Yoga activities, otherwise they leave the
soul simultaneously with their influx (Ashrava). As such it is clear that it is
with passions that the influx (Ashrava) becomes bondage-bandh of the soul. Thus
the passions or Kashayas are the principal causes of Bandh or Bondage of soul
and its transmigration in the world, though Yoga are a precondition.

Thus we have seen that YOGA and KASHAYA are the two causes of Bondage
or Bandh. According to other tradition false vision (Mithya Darshan),
un-diciplined life (Avirati) and Negligence (Pramad), are also considered
causes leading to Bondage (Bandh) of the soul(in addition to the YOGA and KASHYA). However, an in-depth look will
reveal that these three causes are covered by Yoga and Kashaya in their broader
meaning.

False vision or faith (Mithya Darshan) implies want of true belief or
indulgence in false belief. Undisciplined life (Aviriti) is not following the
five vows (Vratas) i.e. Indulgence in violence, untruth etc. and Negligence
(Pramad) is carelessness or recklessness in thought, word or deed and all these
ultimately result in four Kashayas, the four passions i.e. Anger (Krodh), Pride
(Maan), Deceipt (Maya) and Greed (Lobh). Also these are the prime agents of
bondage and therefore, are rightly considered so along with Yogas (cause of
influx). However, in higher stages of the development of the soul (Gunasthan),
where finer distinction and detailed appraisal has to be made, all the other
causes are also mentioned so as to put them in proper perspective.

Various aspects of Bondage of Karma with the soul(The Doctrine of Karma PArt -2)

A number of questions can arise about different aspects of BONDAGE OR
KARMA BANDHA e.g. what is the result of such Bondage, does Bondage effect all
pradesh of the soul or part only, is the bondage similar for all souls etc. The
answers to these questions throw light on the process of Bondage and therefore,
deserve mention here. It is as a result of Bondage that the Karma varieties are
formed. Just as fodder eaten by a cow or goat is converted into milk, which
simultaneously determines its taste like sweetness, and other qualities as also
its quantity and lastingness or duration, similarly in respect of Karma the
nature (Prakriti) duration (Sithi), intensity (Anubhag) and quantity (Pradesh)
is determined alongwith the attachment or Bondage. The Karma acquired by the
soul are in Sooksham or very fine form and areformed by infinitesimal pudgals. The soul in its entirety gets bound by the
Karma Pudgal which it draws from all directions but from the limited area of
its (souls) existence only (not from beyond it). However, the Karma
Bandha-Bondage of each soul varies depending upon the difference in its
YOGAactivities in body, speech and mind
and the Kashyas at that time.

It must have become evident that the Influx and Bondage (Ashrava and
Bandh) as also Sanvar and Nirjara of Karma-with soul are occurring all the
times simultaneously. These are very complex phenomena that can de gauged
exactly by only omniscient beings-the Keval Gyanis. Such beings can see the
interplay of soul and Karma Pudgal like a fruit on one's palm. Before closing
this discussion and going over to the attributes of Karma it may be recalled
that some Karma bondage is good or happy meaning thereby that they result in
worldly prosperity, physical well-being etc., but it is bondage alright and it
results in continuation of transmigration of the soul inthe world and obstructs its final release
and Moksha.

Four parts or varieties of Bondage (Bandh)

It has been mentioned above that along with the process of Karma
Bondage by Influx (YOGA) and Passions (KASHAYA) the (i) Nature (Prakriti); (ii)
Quantum (Pradesh); (iii) Duration (Stithi) and (iv) Intensity (Anubhag) of such
Karma Bondage is also determined. The first two are primarily determined by
Yoga as it is on the magnitude or power or otherwise of the Yoga that the(i) Nature of the Karma Bandh and (ii)
Quantum of Karma absorbed will depend. Again the latter two i.e. (iii) Duration
and (iv) Intensity of Bondage will primarily depend upon the four Kashyas or
passions and their intensity or otherwise as these will provide operating time
and force to the Karma Bondage. This will become more clear from the subsequent
discussion of the subject where we shall examine each of the four parts of
bondage separately viz. (i) Nature, (ii) Duration, (iii) Intensity and (iv)
Quantum.

Nature Bondage (Prikriti Bandh)

The Karma acquired by the soul depend on the different types of
activities of body, speech and mind accompanied by passions. As a result of the
difference in such activities the Karma acquire different natures. These are
broadly divided into eight species of Nature Bondage or Prikriti Bandh for the
sake of categorisation though the nature of Karma Bondage is of innumerabletypes as the activities are of innumerable
kinds. These Natures are invisible but can be judged from the effect of Karma
on the living beings. The main eight kinds of Nature Bondage (Prikriti Bandh )
are further divided into the following ninety seven (some authorities give more
types taking sub-classes into count) detailed types which are discussed below :

6.Naam
- Physique Karma with forty two main sub-division, and ninety three (103 also)
further sub-divisions.

7.Gotra
- Status Karma with two sub-divisions.

8.Antraya
- Obstructing Karma with five sub-divisions.

Knowledge obscuring Karma-Gyanavarniya Karma

Knowledge or consciousness is an essential and distinctive attribute of
the soul. This may be specific or general i.e. knowledge which gives specific
information or exact nature of things is Gyan (as opposed to general idea of
things which is Darshan discussed later). The Karma which obscure or obstruct
this attribute of the soul i.e. consciousness or knowledge (the Gyan) due to
its evil effect are known as knowledge obscuring Karma which are like a bandage
on the eyes which obstructs the sight. Some of the reasons leading toknowledge obscuring Karma are criticizing and
opposing the really knowledgeable or Gyanis, obstructing acquisition ofknowledge by any body and similar
activities. It is known that knowledge is of five types and accordingly this
Karma is also divided into five types-depending upon the types of knowledge
these obstruct or obscure. These are briefly mentioned below :

1.Sensory-knowledge-obscuring
Karma (Mati Gyanavarniya) - which obstruct the right sensory knowledge derived
through the five senses viz., sense of sight, hearing, smell, taste and touch
as also the mind.

4.Mind
reading knowledge obscuring Karma (Man-paryay Gyanavarniya ) - which obscure
the powers of mind reading which also may be termed as telepathy broadly.

5.Omniscience
obscuring Karma (Kewal Gyanavarniya) - which obscure the power of soul to
acquire omniscience or unlimited knowledge.

Perception obscuring Karma (Darshanvarniya Karma) -

The word Darshan here is translated as Perception to distinguish it
from the word Darshan which means faith and vision as mentioned in the first
Sutra of Tatvarth Sutra - "Samyag Darshan, Gyan, Charitrani Moksha
Marg" Hence Darshan or perception here implies general or non-specific
knowledge of things as opposed to specific knowledge which is meant by Gyan.
The Bondage of Karma which obscure, the powers of general perceptions the soul
fall in this category. This general perception is of four types and the Karma
obscuring these four perceptions are the types of perception obscuring Karma as
listed below :

1.Sight
perception obscuring Karma (Chakshu darshanavarniya)- The general perception which is acquired with the help of eyes
or sight is sight perception and Karma obscuring this power is sight
perception-obscuring Karma.

2.Non-sight
perception obscuring Karma (Achksu Darshanvarniya) - The general perception
which is acquired through the mind and senses other than eyes is non-sight
Perception and Karma obscuring such powers are called nonsight obscuring Karma.

3.Remote
Perception obscuring Karma (Avadhi Darshanavaniya) - This Karma obscure general
perception of remote physical objects without the medium of eyes or other sense
and the mind (which is akin to the remote knowledge).

4.Perfect
perception obscuring Karma (Kewal Darshanvarniya) - Just like Kewal
Gyanavarniya Karma, these Karma obstruct the power of the soul to realise
perfect Perception or Kewal Darshan.

In addition there are five types of Perception- obscuring Karma, which
relate to powers of sleep over wakefulness. These are termed "Vedniya
" as against "avaran" of four types discussed above. These are -

1.Nidravedniya
Darshanvarniya - Karma which enable such sleep from which one can wake up
easily;

2.Nidra
Nidra Vedniya Darshnavarniya Karma - which make it difficult to wake up from
sleep.

3.Prachala
Vedniya Darshnavarniya Karma - which result into sleep even while standing or
sitting.

4.Prachala
Prachala Vedniya Darshnavarniya Karma -which result in sleep even while walking.

5.Styanagridhi
Darshanavarniya Karma - which enables execution of different actions during
sleep by giving considerable power during sleep.

These are the nine varieties of Perception obscuring Karma which is
compared with a guard or gatekeeper not permitting free access to the soul. The
reasons for acquisition of this Karma are the same as those for knowledge
obscuring karma, because as mentioned earlier Darshan is general or
non-specific type of knowledge only.

It may again be clarified that though the name Darshana-varniya is used
this Karma does not obscure the attribute of true faith or vision which is
caused by Deluding Karma (Mohaniya Karma ) which will be explained later.

Feeling Producing Karma or Vedneeya Karma

The Karma bondage which on fruition gives feeling of worldly pleasure
or pain or happiness or un-happiness is called feeling producing or Vedneeya
Karma. This is of two types i.e. (i) The Karma which produce pleasure or
happiness are called Pleasure producing (Sata Vedneeya) Karma and (ii) those
which produce displeasure or un-happiness are called Dis-pleasure Producing
(Asata Vedneeya) Karma.

As a corollary to feeling of pleasure or pain this Karma provides all
means and equipment leading to pleasure or pain. This is compared with a sharp
knife or dagger covered with honey, which is sweet to taste but can also cut or
harm the tongue. The causes leading to this Karma are the acts leading to harm
or hurt to other living beings or providing means of happiness or otherwise to
others by thought, word or deed.

It may be clarified again that this Karma concerns worldly pleasure (or
pain) only and not the ultimate infinite happiness of the soul or spirit which
comes from complete destruction of all Karma, (including this Karma) on
attainment of liberation or Moksha.

Deluding Karma or Mohaneeya Karma

It is well known that Right knowledge, Right faith and Right conduct
form the path of liberation. It has been stated above that knowledge obscuring
Karma obstruct the soul's efforts to acquire right knowledge. The type of Karma
which obstructs or obscures the soul's effort for achieving Right faith and
Right conduct (even right knowledge) is called the Deluding or Mohaneeya Karma.
The effects of this Karma deludes or misleads the soul and this Karma is so
powerful that it is considered the villian of the piece or the king of all
Karma. It is compared with intoxication and like an intoxicated person the soul
under its influence loses power to distinguish between good and bad, right and
wrong and goes astray towards false faith and false conduct. Its two main
divisions are (I) Faith or vision Deluding Karma (Darshan Mohaneeya) and (II)
Conduct Deluding Karma (Charitra Mohaneeya). The former Karma which obscure
Right Vision or Right faith can be further sub-division into three categories :

Faith or vision Deluding Karma
(Darshan Mohaneeya)

Rationalism Deluding Karma
(Samkytav Mohaneeya)

The operation of this type of Karma though
permitting inclination towards Right vision/Faith obstructs high degree of
right faith which is necessary to eliminate or suppress false faith completely
to pave the way to full realisation of the soul's qualities.

Mixed Deluding Karma (Misra
Mohaneeya)

The operation of this variety of Karma
results in uncertain or doubtful state of the faith or vision of the soul which
vacillates between true vision or faith and false vision or faith and makes it
a "Sanshayatma (Doubting Thomas)" as mentioned in the Bhagwat Geeta.

Falsehood-Irrationalism Deluding
Karma (Mithyatva Mohaneeya)

The operation of this Karma results in
complete lack of true faith/vision; or positive adherence to false faith. This
depends upon whether the development of the beings enables them understanding
or not. As such if the beings are like insects which have no understanding they
will suffer from lack of true faith called Anabhigrahik (Untaught) Bondage. If
the beings are with developed understanding like human beings and even than
they do not have true faith but also have false faith (belief in false gods,
teachers and books) then it will be called Abhigrahik (Taught) Bondage.

This Karma is so powerful that it brings in
its train all other causes of Bondage of soul viz. undisciplined life
(Avirati), Negligence (Pramad), Passion (Kashya) and Yoga (Influx). As such it
completely overpowers and misleads the soul and not only does it vitiate Right
faith/vision but also obstructs acquisition of Right knowledge and Right
conduct.

Conduct Deluding (Charitra
Mohaneeya) Karma

Conduct Deluding (Charitra Mohaneeya) Karma
are those which obscure or obstruct Right conduct and are further sub-divided
into twenty five categories, sixteen of Passion Deluding (Kashaya Mohaneeya) and
nine of Pseudopassion Deluding (No-Kashaya Mohaneeya) Karma.

At first the sixteen Passion Deluding
(Kashaya Mohoneeya) categories of Conduct Deluding Karma should be dealt with.
The four Kashyas or Passions are Anger (Krodh), Pride (Maan), Deceipt (Maya)
and Greed (Lobha) and these are introduced in the soul by this type of Karma.
Each of these passions is of four gradations and all together make sixteen
categories.

The highest grade or extremely severe
typeof Anger, Pride, Deceipt and Greed
which results in such Bondage that the soul has to go through transmigration in
the world for infinite period due to repeated births and deaths. This is called
Infinite Bondage-Anger, Pride, Deceipt and Greed (Anantanubandhi Krodha, Maan,
Maya and Lobha) and is of four types according to four passions. It is like a
line engraved on the stone which cannot be removed.

When the Karma bondage is less severe
but still such that the four passions do not permit adoption of even minor vows
(Anuvratas) of layman of Non-violence, Truth, Non-theft, Continence and
Non-covetousness, this Karma Bondage is called Non-adoption (of vows) Karma of
Anger, Pride, Deceipt and Greed (Apratyakhanavarni Karma) and is also of four
types.

Slightly less severe than the above are
the four types of Karma bondage pertaining to each of the four Kashaya
(Passions) which permit adoption of minor vows or vows of layman i.e. Anuvratas
but do not permit acceptance of major vows or vows of saints i.e. Mahavratas in
respect of Non-violence etc. and are called Pratyakhanivarni Karma and are also
of the four types viz., Anger, Pride, Deceipt, and Greed.

Even lesser in severity are the four
Karma Bondage which may not obstruct acceptance of major vows or Mahavratas but
may cause blemishes and minor breaches in the proper acceptance and
implementation of the major vows of non-violence etc. These are called
Sanjvalan Karma relating to Anger, Pride, Deceipt and Greed and are also of four
types.

While there are four main passions
called Kashayas there are nine Pseudo-passions or sub-passions called
No-kashaya which are attendant upon and lead to the intensification of the four
passions viz. Anger, Pride, Deceipt and Greed. These nine are:

1.Laughter
(Hasya),

2.Attraction
(Rati),

3.Repulsion
(Arati),

4.Fear
(Bhaya),

5.Grief
(Shok),

6.Hatred
(Ghrina),

7.Feminine
(Stree Ved),

8.Masculine
(Purush Ved)

9.Neuter
(Napusank Ved).

These sub-passions are described below
alongwith the causes leading to them in brief -

2.Attraction Deluding (Rati Mohaneeya) Karma
Bondage is caused by non-restraint in life and indifference in the
observance of vows and results in undue attachment with persons and things
worldly.

3.Repulsion Deluding (Arati Mohaneeya) -
Karma Bondage is caused by causing discomfort and creating obstructions for
others, moving in company of un-restrained people and results in undue
repulsion and enmity towards others.

4.Fear Deluding (Bhay-Mohaneeya) - Karma
Bondage is caused by terrorising and creating scare for others and results
in a tendency towards being afraid, cowardly and terror stricken.

5.Grief Deluding (Shok Mohaneeya) - Karma
Bondage is caused by unnecessarily grieving and weeping and making others
do the same and this results in a grevious nature in one's life.

6.Hatred Deluding (Ghrina Mohaneeya) - Karma
Bondage is caused by hating what is useful like useful advice, useful
persons and things. This brings in its turn a hateful disposition.

7, 8, and 9 also result in the being
showing tendencies and inclination towards the particular sex in the future.

This brings to end the discussion of
twenty eight types of Deluding (Mohaneeya) Bondage which may appear lengthy but
is necessary due too the importance of this type of karma bondage which is the
most difficult to overcome. It is well known that the senior most learned
disciple of Lord Mahaveer, Gandhar Gautam could not attain Omniscience or
Perfect knowledge (Keval Gyan) due to this Karma and his resultant attachment
(Moha) for Lord Mahaveer and he (Gautam Swami) became omniscient only when he
realised this and gave up such delusion (Moha) after the death of Lord
Mahaveer.

Age (AAYU) Karma Bondage -

This Bondage which keeps the soul in the body and determines the
quantity of life for which it will remain there is called the Life Span or Age
or Aayu Karma. In other words a being's body remains alive for the quantum of
life determined by this Karma and dies when this Karma is exhausted. The
quantum of life need not be years or months as like a sponge absorbing water
the quantity of water may be determined but the time may vary. It is compared
with imprisonment broadly. The age may be of two types i.e. (i) Apavartaniya or
the one which may be shortened due to accidents in which case the Age Karma are
exhausted in shorter duration due to untimely (Akal) death. (ii) Anapavartaniya
or the age which will run its full course of length of years and cannot be
shortened.

There are four sub-types of Age Bondage which decide the quantum of
life (not years) the living being will be spending in the particular type of
existence and exhausting the age karma in any one out of the four types of
existence i.e. (i) Hellish existence (ii) Animal existence, (iii) Human
existence and (iv) Godly existence. It may be clarified that the Age Karma
determines only the duration of stay in the particular existence, the birth
therein is determined by Naam Karma-dealt with below.

A salient feature of Life Span or Age Karma is that its bondage with
the soul does not accrue at all times like other Karmas. On the contrary its
bondage occurs at fixed times only. In respect of Gods and hellish creatures it
occurs six months before the death of such beings. For human beings and animals
bondage of future life span occurs when 1/3, 1/9, 1/27 or 1/81 of the existing
age remains for the being.

Physique Determining (Naam) Karma Bondage -

This Karma bondage determines the physique or the body that the soul
will occupy. It has, therefore, been compared with a painter like whom it
creates different types of bodies, their forms and shapes, sounds and smells
and determines the soul's abode ranging from the lowest type of immovable body
with one sense to the body of the Perfect beings, the Teerthankars. As such it
has got numerous sub-categories, varying from two to one hundred three,
according to different schools and classification and sub-classification. There
are firstly two main divisions viz. (i) the Happy Physique Karma (Shubh Naam
Karma) and (ii) the Unhappy Physique Karma (Ashubh Naam Karma). If the being or
soul feels happy and satisfied in a particular physique and its other
characteristics, it is considered that it is due to this Karma. This Karma
accrues by sincerity of nature, uniformity in professing and acting and by
removal of discord. The second is Unhappy Physique Karma (Ashubh Naam Karma)
which results in unhappiness and dissatisfaction in the being from his body,
physical features etc. and is a result of insincerity of one's disposition,
diversity in what one says and how one acts, and a discordful nature.

There are other numerous classifications and sub-divisions of this
Karma and these are listed below -

1.Pind
Prakrities - There are fourteen classifications of these with sixty five
(seventy five elsewhere) sub-classifications.

2.Pratayek
Prakrities - These are of eight types.

3.Tras
Prakrities - These are of ten types.

4.Sthavara
Prakrities - These are of ten types.

Thus there are forty two main classes and ninety three sub-classes (one
hundred three elsewhere) of Physique determining Karma. Each main class with
subdetails is listed below with its functions (this is according to Doctrine of
Karma in Jain Philosophy by Dr. Glasenapp).

The 14 Pinda-Prakrities with 65
subcategories -

States of Existence (Gati) Four
-

1.Deva
gati Naam Karma bestows the celestial state of existence.

2.Manusya-gati-naam
karma-bestows the human state of existence.

3.Tiryag-gati-naam-karma-bestows
the animal state of existence.

4.Narak-gati-naam-karma-bestows
the infernal state of existence.

Classes of Beings (Jati) Five -

1.Ekendriya-jati-naam-karma-causes
birth as a being with one senses.

2.Dvindriya-jati-naam-karma-causes
birth as a being with two senses.

3.Trindriya-jati-naam-karma-causes
birth as a being with three senses.

4.Chaturindriya-jati-naam-karma-causes
birth as a being with four senses.

5.Panchendriay-jati-naam-karma-causes
birth as a being with five senses.

Bodies (Sharir) Five -

1.Audarika-sharira-naam-karma-gives
the gross physical body peculiar to animals and men.

2.Vaikriya-sharira-naam-karma
gives the transformation body which consists of fine matter, a body that
changes in form and dimension. The body exists by nature in gods, infernal
beings and certain animals; men can attain it through higher perfection.

3.Aharaka-sharira-naam-karma
gives the translocation body. This body which consists of good and pure
substance and is without active and passive resistance. It is created for a
short time by an pramatta-samyata-ascetic, in order to seek information
concerning intricate dogmatic questions from an arhat who is in another part of
the world, while his own physical body remains in its original place.

4.Taijasa-sharira-naam-karma
gives the fiery body. This body consists of fire pudgals and serves for
digestion of swallowed food. It can also be used by ascetics to burn other
beings or things.

5.Karmana-sharir-naam-karma
gives the karman body. This body is the receptacle for karman-matter. It
changes every moment, because new karman is continually assimilated by the soul
and the already existing one is consumed. Accompanied by it, the jiva at death
leaves his body and betakes himself to the place of his new birth, where the
karman body then forms the basis of the newly produced other bodies.

Chief and Secondary Parts of the
Bodies - Three -

The angopanga-naam-karma cause the origin of
the chief parts of the bodies. The fiery and the karman-body have no parts;
that is why there are only 3 angopanga-naam-karmas namely :

1.Audarika-angopanga-naam-karma
which produce the chief and secondary parts of the physical body.

2.Vaikriya-angopanga-naam-karma
which produce the chief and secondary parts of the transformation body.

3.Aharka-angopanga-naam-karma
which produce the chief and secondary parts of translocation body.

Bindings-five-

Thebandhana-naam-karma provide that the newly seized pudgals of a body are
united with those formerly assimilated ones into an organic entity, as wood
sticks through an adhesive substance. According to the 5 bodies there are 5
binding-karmas:

1.audarika-bandhana-naam-karma
procures the binding of the physical body.

2.vaikriya-bandhan-naam-karma
procures the binding of the transformation body.

3.aharaka
bandhana-naam-karma procures the binding of the translocation body.

4.taijasa-bandhana-naam-karma
procures the binding of the fiery body.

5.karmana-bandhana-naam-karma
procures the binding of the karman body. Instead of 5 bandhana some adopt 15,
by not only taking into consideration of the binding of the single parts of the
body to one another, but also the binding of the parts of one body with one or
two others (e.g. audarika taijasa-karmana-bandhana).

Samghatanas-Five-

The samghatana-naam-karma cause the pudgals
of the different bodies to bind one another; they scrape them together as a
rake gathers together grass that is scattered about. According to the 5 bodies
there are 5 samghatana-naam-karmas.

1.audarika
samghatana-naama karma procures the flocking together of the pudgals of the
physical body.

2.vaikriya-samghatana-naam-karma
procures the flocking together of pudgals of the transformation body.

3.aharaka-samghatana-naam-karma
procures the flocking together of the pudgals of the translocation body.

4.taijasa-samghatana-naam-karma
procures the flocking together of the pudgals of the fiery body.

5.karmana-samghatana-namm-karma
procures the flocking together of the pudgals of the karman body.

Firmness of the joints - Six -

The samhanana-naam-karma unites the bones of
the physical body with one another. According to the firmness of the joining, 6
karmas are to be distinguished which produce more or less strong joining of the
joints :

1.vajra-risabha-naraca-samhanana-naam-karma
gives an excellent joining. The two bones are hooked into one another; through
the joining a tack (vajra) is hammered; and the whole is surrounded by a
bandage.

2.risabha-naraca-samhanana-naam-karma
gives a joining not so firm as the preceding one, because the tack is missing.

3.naraca-samhanana-naam-karma
gives as joining which is still weaker, because the bandage is missing.

4.ardha-naraca-samhanana-naam-karma
gives a joining which is on one side like the preceding one, whilst on the
other the bones are simply pressed together and nailed.

5.kilika
samhanana-naam-karma gives a weak joining by which the bones are merely pressed
together and nailed.

6.sevarta
(or chedaprstha) samhanana-naam-karma gives quite a weak joining, by which the
ends of the bones only touch one another.

The samhananas play a great role in Jain
dogmatics. Only the first four make meditation possible (Tattva. IX, 27), and
only the best i.e. the first joining of the joints, permits the highest kind of
concentration which precedes salvation.

Figures - Six -

The Samsthana-naam-karma determine the
stature of a being, that is to say :

1.samacaturasra-samsthana-naam-karma
cause the entire body to be symmetrically built.

2.nyagrodhaparimandala-samsthana-naam-karma
causes the upper part of the body to be symmetrical, not the lower.

3.saddi-samsthana-naam-karma
makes the body below the naval symmetrical and above it unsymmetrical.

The conception of symmetry is explained in
the following way. Imagine a man sitting in the paryanka posture i.e. crossing
the legs and placing the hands over the navel. If the two kness are joined by a
line and from the right shoulder to the left knee, and from the left shoulder
to the right knee, and from the forehead to the hands, straight lines are
drawn, one gets four lines. If these are equal to one another, symmetry is apparent,
if they are not so, one of the other five samsthanas results.

Gods have only the first, infernal beings and
jivas who have been produced through coagulation only the 6th figure and in the
case of animal and men (also of Kevalins) all 6 samsthanas are to be found.

1.Tikta-rasa-naam-karma
gives a bitter-taste (like that of the nimba fruit).

2.Katu-rasa-naam-karma
gives a biting taste (like that of ginger).

3.Kasaya-rasa-naam-karma
gives an astringent taste (like that of bibhitaka).

4.Amla-rasa-naam-karma
gives a sour taste (like that of tamarind).

5.Madhura-rasa-naam-karma
gives a sweet taste (like that of sugar).

The salt taste is produced by a combination
of sweet taste with another. Bitter and biting tastes are considered
unpleasant, the others pleasant.

Touches - Eight -

1.guru-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be heavy, like an iron ball.

2.laghu-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be light, like motes in a sunbeam.

3.mridu-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be smooth, like a tinisa-tendril.

4.khara-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be rough, like stone.

5.sita
sparsa-naam-karma causes a body to be cold, like snow.

6.usna-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be warm, like fire.

7.snigdha-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be adhesive, like oil.

8.ruksa-sparsa-naam-karma
causes a body to be dry like ashes.

Heavy, rough, dry and cold are considered to
be unpleasent touches, the others pleasant.

Anupurvis - Four -

The anupurvi-naam-karma causes that the jiva,
when one existence is finished, goes from the place of death in the proper
direction to the place of his new birth. According to the 4 states of existence
(celestial, human, animal, infernal), there are 4 anupurvi-karma, namely -

1.deva-anupurvi-naam-karma.

2.manusya-anupurvi-naam-karma.

3.tiryag-anupurvi-naam-karma.

4.naraka-anupurvi-naam-karma.

Gaits - Two

1.prasasta-vihayogati-naam-karma-causes
a being to move in a pleasant manner, like one finds with oxen, elephants and
geese.

2.aprasasta-vihayogati-naam-karma
causes an ugly manner of motion like one finds with camels and asses.

The Eight pratyeka-prakritis

1.paraghata-naam-karma
gives superiority over others. It endows the capability of injuring or
vanquishing others; on the other hand, it prevents one from being injured or
overcome by others.

2.ucchavasa-naam-karma-bestows
the capability of breathing.

3.atapa-naam-karma
causes the body of a being not in itself hot to emit a warm splendour.

4.uddyota-naam-karma
causes the transformation body of the gods and ascetics, as well as moon,
stars, precious stones, herbs and shining insects to emit a cold lusture.

6.ashubha-naam-karma
causes that all parts of the body, below the navel are considered to be ugly,
so that somebody who is touched by the foot feels this to be unpleasant.

7.durbhaga-naam-karma
makes the jiva unsympathetic.

8.duhsavara-naam-karma
makes the voice ill sounding.

9.anadeya-naam-karma
makes the jiva unsuggestive.

10.ayashkirti-naam-karma
causes dishonour and shame.

Status determining (Gotra) Karma Bondage.

This Karma determines whether the living being will be born in a
restrained and respected family or otherwise and it is therefore, compared with
a potter. It is divided into two categories viz., (a) High (Uccha) status Karma
and (b) Low (Neech) Status Karma, which are further divided into eight
sub-categories each.

1.High Status (Uccha gotra) Karma
involves a high and respectful status in respect of (i) family; (ii) community
(iii) learning (iv) power (v) profit (vi) penance (vii) looks and (viii) luxury
and these eight form its sub-divisions. This karma results from non-exhibition
of and non-exultaion in one's qualities, knowledge, wealth and other
attainments and admiring such attributes of others.

2.The Low Status (Neech gotra) Karma
results in the opposite equipment and attainments like low and irrespectable
family, connections etc. and is earned by exhibition and exultation in one's
knowledge, wealth etc. and deprecating such qualities in others.

Obstructing (Antraya) Karma Bondage -

This Karma obstructs the adoption of desirable course or attainment of
one's objectives or equipment’s and is of five sub-divisions. It is compared to
a "Storekeeper" who does not permit issue from the store, The five
sub-categories are -

1.Obstructing Charity (Dana Antraya) -
due to which one is not able to give things to deserving people.

2.Obstructing Profit (Labha Antraya) -
due to which one is not able to profit or earn inspite of efforts.

3.Obstructing enjoyment (Bhoga Antraya) -
due to which one may not be able to enjoy things like food, drinks etc.

4.Obstructing repeated enjoyment (Upbhoga
Antraya) - due to which one is not able to enjoy things which are
repeatedly or continuously enjoyed like house, clothes, cars etc.

5.Obstructing powers (Veerya Astraya) - due
to which one is not able to exploit and profit fully by one's prowess or power
or attainments.

This Karma Bondage arises due to similar activities by the beings like
obstructing others' food, water etc. depriving others of their due profit and
raising obstacles in the path of others' progress.

This brings to end the discussions of Nature Bondage of Karma (Prikriti
Bandh) with the soul. Along with the Nature Bondage the Duration (Stithi),
Intensity (Anubhag/Ras) and Quantam (Pradesh) bondage is also determined at the
time of influx and bondage of Karma with the soul. Now these three can also be
examined.

Duration Karma Bondage (Stithi Bandh) -

The time or duration for which the particular Karma bondage will bear
fruits or give result is determined along with the nature of such Karma bondage
when it occurs. This also is dependant upon the intensity of the activities of
the being (Yoga) and of passions-Kashayas-the latter being more important. This
duration may be millions and millions years and even a fraction of a second for
which period the particular Karma remains active, live and in operation giving
result. This is known as Duration or Stithi bondage. The maxima and minima of
this duration varies for different Karma the maximum duration is that of
Deluding (Mohaneeya) Karma which is seventy Kota-Koti Sagaropam. Between the
maxima and minima the duration is fixed by different being by their own acts of
omission and commission. The duration (Stithi) Bondage is however not
sacrosanct and in some cases the time of operation of some Karmas can be
reduced or increased by one's efforts as explained later.

Quantum Karma Bondage (Pradesh Bandh) -

The quantity of Karma Bodies that is attracted and attached to the soul
by Yoga (Activity) and Kashaya (Passions) is called the Quantum or Pradesh
bondage. In this process Yoga or Activity plays more important role as it
attracts Karma Bodies into the soul, and therefore the Quantum Bondage of Karma
varies with the activities of the beings through mind, speech and body coupled
with the passions.

Intensity Karma Bondage (Anubhag or Ras Bandh) -

The power or the strength of the Karma according to which its fruits or
results will vary is known as the Intensity (Anubhag) Karma Bondage. All Karma
attracted into the soul do not have equal force or power because their power
varies with the intensity of Kashaya (Passions) in the acts due to which they
are bound. If the anger or greed with which an act is committed is of high
intensity the Karma accruing will also give results of high intensity involving
extreme pain or discomfort. However, if the passions are mild, the Karma
bondage will also be of low intensity and result also be of minor discomfort.
It must have become obvious that this category of bondage depends primary on
passions or Kashyas.

Before concluding the discussion of four types of Karma bondage it may
be mentioned that it is difficult to divide the causes as well as the four
types of bondage resulting from them into watertight compartments. Just as the
causes like false fiath/vision (Mithyatva), negligence (Pramad), Indicipline
(Avirati), Passion (Kashaya) and Yoga (Influx) are generally present at all
times in varying degrees in the different activities of beings, similarly, the
Karma bondage resulting therefrom involve all the four types and their species
of bondage in varying degrees, which can be exactly gauged by only the perfect
beings. The divisions and sub-divisions of the types of bondage and their
causes discussed above are only broad indications for guidance only. Again,
there is nothing sacrosanct or permanent about the Karma bondage which must ultimately
end in separation (Nirjara) of the Karma from the soul which leads to
liberation or Moksha, except in the case of some beings called Abhavies.
Between the two stages of Bondage (Bandh) and separation (Nirjara) of Karma
with the soul there are various stages which are described below to show the
changes and developments that can occur in the bondage of Karma by voluntary
and involuntary efforts. The importance of this discussion lies in the fact
that it highlights the supremacy of the soul over the Karma or voluntary effort
(Purshart) over destiny in as much as it shows that by such effort the destined
results of Karma bondage can be altered, or modified to a certain extent. They
are:

1.Intensification
(Udavartana)

2.Dilution
(Apvartna),

3.Stay
(Satta)

4.Operation
(Uday)

5.Premature
operation (Udirna)

6.Interchange
(Sankramana)

7.Dormancy
(Upshama)

8.Flexibility
(Nidhat)

9.Inflexibility
(Nikachana).

These are briefly dealt with in the under-mentioned paras.

1.Intensification or Udvartana - means
further increase in the Duration (Stithi) or Intensity (Anubhag) of Karma
bondage due to one's action.

2.Dilution or Apvartana involves reducing
the duration or intensity bondage as opposed to item (i) above. These both
relate to the two types of Bondage only and as a result of these the duration
of operation of Karmas may be prolonged or shortened as well made more severe
or mild due to Udvartana and Apvartana respectively.

3.Stay or Satta means existence of Karma
bondage with the soul before coming into fruition or operation. It is the idle
state of Karma bodies.

4.Operation or Udaya is the bearing of
fruits by the Karma due to all other conditions also being ripe. It is during
the operation that the Karma have their good or bad effects on the beings and
then leave the soul. It may be involuntary or by deliberate efforts when it is
called Udirana (Premature-operation) discussed below at item. (v) It has been
prescribed that when Karma come into operation bringing pleasure or pain, one
should observe complete equanimity (samata). This will make the Karma shed
their attachment with the soul without further acquisition of Karma. If one
loses his equanimity and indulges in further passions this will lead to
consequent bondage ad-inifinitum.

5.Udirana or Premature Operation means
bringing the Karma bondage into operation or fruition by deliberate efforts
(like penance). In this process the Karma that could have borne fruits later
can be ripened early to give results in advance like ripening of fruits by
artificial means. It may not apply to all cases of and types of Karma bondage.

6.Inter-change or Sankarman involves the
change of one type of Karma bondage into another type. Ordinarily the Karma
bondage adheres to its own Nature, Duration and Intensity etc. and gives
results according to its category e.g. Knowledge Obscuring Karma will obscure
knowledge only (according to the appropriate nature, duration and intensity).
However, it is possible to change one sub-category of Karma into another by
proper efforts e.g. Sensory Knowledge-Obscuring Karma (Mati Gyanavarnia) may be
changed into Study Knowledge Obscuring Karma (Sruta-Gyanavarnia). There are,
however, exceptions e.g. Faith Deluding (Darshan Mohaneeya) Karma cannot be
inter-changed with Conduct Deluding (Charitra Mohaneeya) Karma and the
sub-types of Life Span (Aayu) Karma cannot be interchanged etc. Such
interchange is also possible in respect of duration (Stithi) and intensity
(Anubhag) Karma bondage which can be increased or decreased as stated earlier
(under intensification (Udvartana) and dilution (apvartana).

7.Dormacy or Upshama - When the Karma
(bondage) is made not to give results but are made dormant it is considered a
state of Upshama of that Karma. This is like fire covered by ashes. As soon as
dormancy is over the Karma start giving results like fire whence ashes have
been removed.

8.Flexibility or Niddhat is the state or
Karma when its powers can be partially altered by efforts like penance. This
is, however, possible subject to extreme conditions and limitation.

9.Inflexibility-Nikachana is such Karma
bondage the result of which is inescapable and effects of which cannot be
altered by the best of efforts like penance. Such Karma will release the soul
only giving results upon operation (Udaya).

There can be more such stages in the relationship of soul with the
Karma and between Karma internse. Even some of those described above are
overlapping. However, it should be clear that though at times the Karma bondage
has a strangle-hold and upper hand on the soul, by adequate efforts the soul
can be supreme and can alter and dilute the effects of Karma-nay even
completely get rid of them. This shows the importance of human efforts or
Purusharth vis a vis destiny. The discussion now comes to the concluding
portion i.e. the separation (Nirjara) of the Karma from the soul and its
complete liberation or Moksh or Mukti.

Sanvar or Prevention -

A very brief mention may be made, for the sake of comprehensiveness, of
Prevention-Sanwar of Karma bondage which is opposite of Influx and stops the
entrance of Karma into the soul body abinition. As a result the question of
bondage does not arise. The Prevention or Sanwar is essential stage on the path
of spiritual lberation and also prescribes the best path to be followed in
human life to achieve greatest good of greatest number. It has been given place
in seven fundamentals (Tatva) of Jainism and has been dealt with as such (in
Pt. I). In short it requires non-indulgence in all such activities that may
result in Influx (Asrava) and bondage (Bandh) and to follow a positive way of
life which will automatically lead to prevention. The activities to be avoided
are of forty two types listed earlier, (though differently listed elsewhere but
implications are the same). The positive acts include 3 Gupti, 5 Samity, 10
Dharma, 12 Bhavanas, overcoming 22 Parishah, 5 Charitra and 12 Tapa dealt with
in Pt. I.

So far as the discussion of Karma is considered Prevention (Sanwar) is
denial of Influx (Asarav) of Karma and all its species and categories. Thus
when Prevention is achieved further influx and bondage of Karma into the soul
is stopped. The way then becomes clear to shed the accumulated Karma and such
shedding is known as Nirjara or Separation.

Nirjara or Separation -

This has also been discussed in Pt. I as part of Seven Fundamentals.
From the angle of Karma it may be added that once the bonded Karma have given
their fruit according to the Bondage, (in respect of Nature, Duration,
Intensity and Quantum) coupled with other circumstances like voluntary efforts,
it falls apart from the soul leaving it for good. In another way Karma may be
separated from the soul by Penance which is of twelve types and which has also
been discussed at length in Pt. I. as part of Three Hallmarks of Jainism. With
the total separation (Nirjara) of Karma, further Bondage and Influx having been
stopped already, the path is clear for complete liberation or Moksha or Mukti.

This path to complete liberation lies through omniscience (Kevalya)
which is first achieved by complete destruction of the four Ghatia Karmas i.e.
(1) Deluding (Mohaneeya), (2) Knowledge obscuring (Gyanavarnia), (3) Perception
Obscuring (Darshanvarnia) and (4) Obstructing (Antaraya). These four suppress
the intrinsic attributes of the soul and out of these Deluding (Mohaneeya)
Karma should be the first to end which is followed by destruction of the other
three. This enables the soul though embodied to shine in its full glory and
power of Absolute Rationsalism (Kshyayik Samyaktva), Infinite Perception (Anant
Darshan), Infinite Knowledge (Anant Gyan), and Infinite prowess (Anant Veerya).
Such personages are called Kevali (Perfect beings) Sarvagya (All-knowing) Jina
(Victors) and when blessed with Teerthankar Naam (Physique) Karma they become
Theerthankars and re-establish the religion and four Teertha Centres of Worship
i.e. Monks (Sadhu), Nuns (Sadhvi) Shravaka (Laymen) and Shravika (Laywomen).

However, the progreess of the pilgrim on this path is not easy. Though
hard and fast divisions are not possible the progress of destruction or
separation of Karma from the soul (Nirjara) is divided in a number of stages
called Gunasthans described in a separate chapter.

In each of these progressive stages the separation of Karma from the
soul increases innumerable time from stage to stage and in turn the higher
powers of the soul are manifested reaching the highest pinnacle as Jina or
perfect being as stated above.

However, the Jina or Omniscient being is not completely liberated or
Mukta as four minor Karma are still present. These are called the Aghatiya
Karmas and sustain the physical existence, and, as we know, are the Status
(Gotra) Age (Aayu), Physique (Naam) and Feeling (Vedniya) Karmas. When these
are also destroyedor separated from
the soul, the Influx already stopped by Prevention, the soul becomes completely
free from Karma, worldly existence and the rounds of birth and death. This is
complete liberation or Mukti or Moksha.

This state is difficult to be described in words, though some attempt
has been made in Pt. I. From the point of view of Karma, the subject which is
under discussion, liberation or Mukti or Moksha is complete destruction of
Karma. According to Tatvarth Sutra "Kritsna Karmakshyo Moksha" i.e.
complete destruction of Karma is Moksha.

Thus the liberation or Mukti or release of the soul is from Karma
bondage and, therefore, the technical and literal meanings are identical in
this case. Its significance lies in the fact that the bondage has been with the
soul since times immemorial, actually it is beginningless and the liberation or
release is final and irreversible with no further chance of Karma bondage. At
the same time though the powers of the released soul are limitless, some of the
attributes realised (by the soul) which were obstructed by the Karma bondage of
eight kinds are given in the following table in juxtaposition :

Kind of Karma destroyed

Attributes of soul realised thereby

(i)

Deluding (Mohaneeya)

Perfect rationalism (Kshyayik-
Samyaktva).

(ii)

Perception obscuring
(Darshanavarniya)

Perfect perception (Anant Darshan).

(iii)

Knowledge obscuring (Gyanavarniya)

Perfect knowledge/Wisdom (Anant Gyan)

(iv)

Obstructing (Antraya)

Perfect Prowess (Anant Veerya)

(v)

Status Determining (Gotra)

Equality of status (Agurulagutva)

(vi)

Age (Aayu)

Eternity (Akshya Stithi)

(vii)

Physique determining (Naam)

Formlessness (Amoortatva)

(viii)

Feeling producing (Vedniya)

Non-interference (Avyabadhatava).

These indeed are the distinguishing features of the liberated soul as
described in the Jain Canon.

Some additional observations, conclusions and Summary (The
Doctrine of Karma PArt -3)

These observations are supplementary to the above discussion of the
doctrine of Karma. They also summarize some observations and throw additional
light on some aspects-for these reasons these have been taken at the end.

Firstly, it must have become clear that Karma and the results thereof
are strictly personal to the soul, responsible for and bound by them. No other
soul or being can help or share in the result of one's Karma as they travel
with the particular soul from birth to birth. If any expiation or alleviation
has to be done it has to be done by the soul itself. No other soul can bail out
the responsible soul by agreeing to bear or share the fruits of its Karma. In
short Karma bondage and Karma results are not transferable.

True to its analytical tradition Jainism has divided Karma into a
number of groups in order to bring out their important features to enable a
clearer understanding of this difficult but important subject. Accordingly
Karma are divided into the following significant groups :

A.Dravya Karma and
Bhava Karma

B.Shubh Karma and
Ashubh Karma

C.Iriyapathic Karma
and Samprayik Karma

D.Ghati Karma and
Aghati Karma.

Though some of them have been discussed or mentioned in passing, they
are highlighted below for the sake of comprehensiveness.

Dravya Karma and Bhava Karma (Material Karma and Thought
Karma).

The Karma Pudgal or the Karma Vargana attached to the soul are the
Dravya Karma and the Yoga and the four passions (which lead to bondage) are the
Bhava Karma. The Bhava Karma being activities or attributes of the soul are
spiritual in character while Dravya Karma being part of matter are material in
character. The former are called defects (dosa) of the soul and the latter the
cover (avarna) of the soul. The Dravya and Bhava Karma are mutually related as
each other's counterparts i.e. cause and effect, each of the other. The Bhava
Karma i.e. Yoga and passions (Kashaya) attract Dravya Karma (Karma pudgal) and
bind them to the soul, while the latter cause vibration in the soul leading to
further Yoga and Kashaya or further Bhava Karma. This chain reaction continues
as a vicious circle till broken by positive and deliberate efforts called
Sanwar (Prevention) and Nirjara (Separation).

Shubh (Happy or Good) or Ashubha (Unhappy or Bad) Karma

Strictly speaking from the spiritual point of view all Karma Bondage is
Ashubh, as it fetters the powers of the soul. However, from the worldly point
of view some Karma Bondage makes for happiness and contentment in the embodied
life while others lead to unhappiness and discontent. The former are the result
of Shubh Yoga and the latter of Ashubh Yoga as discussed in the beginning of
this chapter. These are loosely called Shubh and Ashubh Karma and are also
described as Punya and Paap. As all the Karma bondage must involve passion or
Kashaya i.e. Raag and Dvesh even Shubh Karma or Punya also imply Raag
(attachment) or Kashaya of some type or other. However, such attachment may be
of noble type which is called Prashast Raag. Further the control over the
passions or making them dormant (upshama) may also result in Happy or
auspicious Karma Bondage or Punya. The reason for terming such Karma as Shubh
or Punya is that they provide further opportunity for emancipation of the soul
from Karma through prevention (Sanwar) and separation (Nirjara). However, it
may be reiterated that even the best of Shubh Karma or Punya even Teerthankar
Naam Karma is inferior to Nirjara or destruction of Karma - strictly from the
point of view of spiritual development.

Out of the approximately hundred varieties of nature Bondage or
Prakriti Bandh some are considered as happy types or shubh or Punya Prakrities
and some are termed as unhappy or Ashubh or Paap Prakrities. Though there are
some minor differences in the exact classification the following examples will
illustrate the two categories :

Kinds or Karma

Shubh or Happy nature

Ashubh or Unhappy nature

(i)

Knowledge obscuring (Gyanavarnia)

NIL

All the five subtypes.

(ii)

Perception obscuring (Darshanavarniya)

NIL

All the nine subtypes.

(iii)

Feeling producing (Vedniya)

Pleasure producing (Asata Vedniya)

Displeasure producing (Asata
Vedniya)

(iv)

Deluding (Mohaneeya)

(a) Faith deluding (Samyaktava)

All other twenty four sub-categories

(b) Laughter (Hasya)

(N.B. All 28 categories are considered unhappy by some
authorities)

(c) Attraction (Rati)

(d) Masculine (Purushved)

(v)

Life Span (Aayu)

(a) Godly life span

Hell life span

(b) Human life span

(c) Animal life span

(vi)

Physique Determining(Naam)

As stated earlier Happy Physique Karma
includes those categories out of 93sub-categories of this Karma which makes for happiness and
satisfaction of the being,

and the others are unhappy or Ashubh
categories.

Example of happy Naam Karma are
celestial and human states of existence,

while animal and inferior states
fallinto unhappy group of Naam Karma
categories.

(vii)

Status (Gotra)

High staus (Ucha)

Low status (Neech)

(viii)

Obstructing (Antraya)

NIL

All five types

It may be added that when the Karma Bondage occurs it is not
compartmentalised in purely happy or purely unhappy types of Bondage. It is a
combined accrual of Karma into the soul but the categorisation in happy (Shubh
or Punya) or unhappy (Ashubh or Paap) types of Bondage is determined by the
predominant nature of the Karma bondage which in turn depends on the degree of
Yoga and Kashaya in the soul at that time. If the yoga is shubh or good and
Kashay is also subdued the Bondage occurring will be of a happy or shubh
category of Karma, while in the opposite conditions it will be unhappy or
Ashubh Bondage.

This distinction and discussion is important as misunderstanding of
this subject has resulted in confusion, controversies and even schism in the
Jain church. The happy or shubh Karma or Punya, though a bondage of the soul,
cannot be shunned, but is preferable to the unhappy or Ashubh Karma or paap in
the conduct of the beings generally. These shubh Karma can be avoided only
after reaching a certain stage when they become a burden. They can be compared
with a ladder, which has to be carried and used for going up, though once the
top is reached the ladder need not be carried and may be discarded; but only
after the higher level is reached. It may be concluded that the saints and nuns
who follow the five major vows and who are at an advanced stage of spiritual
conduct need not care much for shubh or happy Karma. However, the laymen and
lay-women should not adjure and do not abjure the shubh Karma. This can be seen
in daily life, when the Jain laymen are seen engaged in acts of pity and
charity ranging from building hospitals and shelters (for men and animals
alike) to feeding them in times of need. It is hoped the above clarification
will, to some extent, neutralize or invalidate the charge against Jainism that
it teaches selfishness and makes a man self-centered, caring for one's own
salvation only without any social commitment.

To fully appreciate the implications and practical aspects of the Happy
and Unhappy or Shubh (Punya) and Ashubh (Paap) Karma, the salient items of
these two are listed below and the four combinations thereof are discussed
later. There are eighteen categories of Karmas which are accepted as Ashubh or
Paap or unhappy as given below :

The four combination of Happy or Shubh Karma (Punya) and Unhappy or
Ashubh Karma (Paap) which offer practical guidance in every day life are given
in the next Para.

Happy present and Happy future (Punyanubandhi Punya)

This combination covers those lives who lead a happy life due to Shubh
Karma in the past (i.e. past Punya) and also further engage in happy or Shubh
(Punya) Karma which result in a happy future. This is the best example of a
happy life which may result in salvation ultimately besides happy life in this
world.

Unhappy present but happy future (Punyabandhi Pap)

Inspite of unhappiness in present existence due to past Ashubh Karma
(Paap) those practising good or happy or Shubh Karma are in this category. They
ensure a happy existence for themselves in future inspite of misery in the
present existence. This is also a desirable course of life.

Happy Present but Unhappy future (Paapanubandhi Punya)

These are beings who presently have a happy existence due to past.
Happy Shubh (Punya) Karma but who indulge in bad or Ashubh Karma (Paap) thus
earning a miserable life for themselves in future. Though they are apparently
happy, inspite of their sinful life, which may create an impression that sin
brings happiness. However, the happiness is due to their past Shubh Karma,
which when exhausted lead to unhappiness and misery. Such conduct is therefore
to be guarded against or avoided.

Unhappy present and unhappy future (Paapanubandhi Paap)

This is the worst combination wherein a being has to suffer due to past
Ashubh Karma or Paap, and who further indulges in similar acts and earns Ashubh
Karma, which lead him to future unhappiness and misery. Obviously this type of
course of action has to be avoided at all costs.

Apart from this two categories of Shub or Ashubh Karma there is a third
group of Karma which do not strictly bind the soul as they are not accompanied
by Passions which are the binding agents. These may be termed as pure Karma or
Shudh Karma or Akarma (as mentioned in Geeta) and are known as iryapathic Karma
which brings us to the next group of Karma.

Iryapathic or Non-effecting Karma and Samprayik or
effecting Karma.

Brief mention of these has come earlier in this chapter under the
heading `Introduction of Karma into the soul'. Further to that discussion, it
may now be clarified that both the happy or Unhappy (Shubh or Ashubh) Karma or
Paap and Punya fall in the Samparyik group or Karma, as they are results of
activity coloured with passions or Kashaya and they bind the soul. However, all
such Karma which arise due to passionless activity are in the Iryapathic group
of Karma and they do not contaminate the soul. They are, therefore, termed as
Shudha or pure Karma. The pilgrim on the path of spiritual progress has,
therefore, to try to adjure the unhappy or Ashubh Karma or Paap completely and
direct his efforts towards happy or Shubh Karma or Punya, even which is not his
ultimate destination. He should aim at Pure or Shudha Karma to avoid further
bondage or further contamination of the soul, which only can lead to Moksha or
liberation.

Ghati Karma (Vitiating Karma) and Aghati Karma
(Nonvitiating Karma)

1.It
has been noted above that the eight attributes or qualities of the soul are
distorted by the eight types of Karmas, which have to be destroyed for full
realisation of its qualitiesby the
soul. Out of the eight attributes of the soul fourare innate attributes or fundamental qualities viz., Perfect
Rationalism (Samyaktva) Perfect Perception (Darshan), Perfect Knowledge or
Wisdom (Gyan) and Perfect Bliss or Prowess (Virya). Unless all these are
realised the soul cannot be considered pure or perfect as elements of impurity
or imperfection remain,, which vitiate the capacity of the soul. The four Karma
that so vitiate or impair the soul are called Ghati Karma or Vitiating Karma.
These are Deluding (Mohaneeya), Perception obscuring (Darshanavarniya)
Knowledge Obscuring (Gyanavarniya ) and Obstructing (Antraya) Karma which
vitiate the four innate qualities of the soul mentioned above respectively.
These vitiating or Ghati Karma may be divided into two sub-types i.e. (i)
completely vitiating or Sarvaghati and (ii) Partially vitiating or Desh Ghati
depending upon the extent to which they vitiate the innate qualities of the
soul. Thus the omniscience obscuring or Keval Gyanavarnia Karma is completely
vitiating (Saravaghati) while the other four sub-types of Knowledge Obscurine
Karma are partially obscuring Karma i.e. Desh Ghati.

2.The
remaining four categories of Karma viz., Status (Gotra), Age (Aayu), Physique
(Naam) and Feeling producing (Vedniya) determine the physical or worldly
existence of the soul in respect of level of family, duration of life, types of
body and happy/unhappy states respectively, that the soul will encounter in the
Physical existence. They do not vitiate or damage the innate characteristics of
the soul and are, therefore, termed as Non-vitiating or Aghati Karma.

No-Karma -

We come across this term, which is not very important or relevant to
the subject under discussion. It is also interpreted in various ways. Some
consider the Bodies other than Karma Bodies as No-Karma. It is also meant to
signify the Karma Bodies after they have given results and have separated from
the soul.

Vindication of the Doctrine of Karma -

After endless argument about God, it has been concluded, that "for
those who do not believe in God, no arguments are possible, for those who
believe in God, no arguments are necessary". Same thing may be said about
the concept of Karma and no proof is possible or necessary for this theory. Nor
can it be proved in a laboratory. However, it is a universally accepted
postulate which was not required to be proved. It was the revealed word out of
the teachings of the enlightened ones with all the authority of their perfect
knowledge, insight and experience.

1.Moreover,
the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Karma concept provides a
satisfactory explanation for otherwise inexplicable divergence in existence, as
stated in the beginning of this chapter. The other explanations for the
divergence are the extremely materialist theory of thinkers like Charvak who
considers the creation as a lifeless interplay of elements. This is generally
not acceptable. Or at the other end is the theory that a super-natural
phenomena called God is responsible for the creation with all the diversity and
aberrations. The institution of the supreme God though solving a number of
problems creates many more and leaves a large number of questions like
"who created the creator God" and "why should He put man to sin
only to forgive him" which has been aptly put in a rubai by the famous
Omar Khayam -

"Oh,
Thou who man of baser earth didst make.

And
with Eden didst devise the snake,

For
all the sin, wherewith the face of man,

Is
blackened, man's forgiveness, give and take"

2.As
stated earlier Karma theory steers clear of such problems, and makes the being
self-reliant and responsible for its deeds, at the same time enforcing an
ethical behaviour and highly moral conduct by willing common consent, which
ultimately makes the world a better place to live. It provides a satisfactory
key to the riddle of the creation and its complications and the key is in the
hands of a real living being i.e. the Man, who is the central piece in the
Karma scheme.

3.Not
that Karma theory and materiel nature of Karma has not faced its share of
criticism. It has been considered fatalistic, individualistic and rather
mechanical and too emphatic on punishment and retribution. The student of
detailed aspects of Karma may like to go through the learned dissertations on
the subject, where arguments are marshalled to counter such unmerited
criticism. Here it may be briefly stated, on the basis of earlier discussions,
that the Karma theory is neither fatalistic nor individualistic, normechanical nor retributive. A deeper understanding
of the subject will reveal that belief in Karma leads to voluntary healthy
effort, alongwith acceptance of the inevitable and inescapable results of Karma
which avoids unnecessary discontentment. There is a deep social commitment in
auspicious or Shubh Karma as already noticed above. There being scope for
alteration or transformation in the results of Karma there is no question of
its being called mechanical. Lastly, belief in Karma lays emphasis not so much
on punishment or retribution but on the continuous efforts for moral
regeneration and upliftment of the beings and this results in a better social
order-a utopia visualised by all philosophers and prophets alike.

The discussion of the Theory of Karma may be appropriately closed with
the reproduction of the following remarks of the great German Scholar Dr.
Hermann Jacobi on this subject, as extracted from his essay on
"Jainism" in the Encyclopaedia of Religions and Ethics - "We
have seen the cause of soul's embodiment is the presence in it of Karma matter.
The theory of Karma is the keystone of the Jain system; it is necessary
therefore, to explain this theory in more detail. The natural qualities of soul
are perfect knowledge (Jnana) intution or faith (Darshan), highest bliss, and
all sorts of perfections; but these inborn qualities of the soul are weakened
or obscured in mundane souls by the presence of Karma. From this point of view
the division of Karma will be understood. When karma matter has penetrated the
soul, it is transformed into eight kinds (Prakrti) or Karma singly or
severally, which form the karmanasarira, just as food, is by digestion,
transformed into the various fluids necessary for the support and growth of the
body. The eight kinds of Karma are as follows :-

1. Gyanavarniya, that which obscures the inborn right knowledge (i.e.
omniscience) of the soul and thereby produces different degrees of knowledge
and ignorance (2) Darsanavaraniya that which obscures right intution i.e.
sleep. (3) Vedaniya that which obscures the blissful nature of the soul and
thereby produces pleasure and pain, (4) Mohaniya, that which disturbs the right
attitude of the soul with regard to faith, conduct, passions, and other
emotions, and produces, doubt, error, right or wrong conduct, passions, and
various mental states. The following 4 kinds of Karma concern more the
individual status of a being (5) Ayuska that which determines the length of
life of an individual in one birth as hell-being, animal, man or god (6) Nama
that which produces the various circumstances or elements which collectively
make up an individual existence e.g. the peculiar body with its general and
special qualities, faculties etc. (7) Gotra that which determines the
nationality, caste, family social standing, etc. of an individual (8) Antaraya
that which obstructs the inborn energy of the soul and thereby prevents the
doing of a good action when there is a desire to do it.

We shall now consider the application of the Karma theory to ethics.
The highest goal is to get rid of all Karma (Nirjara) and meanwhile to acquire
no new Karma - technically speaking, to stop the influx (Asrava) of the Karma,
which is called Samvara, or the covering of the channels through which Karma
finds entrance into the soul. All actions produce Karma and in the majority of
cases entail on the doer continuance of worldly existence (Samparayika) but
when aman is free from passions and
acts in strict compliance with the rules of right conduct, his actions produce
Karma which lasts but for a moment and is then annihilated (iryapatha).
Therefore the whole apparatus of monastic conduct is required to prevent the
formation of new karma; the same purpose is served by austerities (tapas) which
moreover, annihilate the old Karma speedily than would happen in the common course
of things.

It is evident from the preceding remarks that the ethics and asceticism
of the Jains are to be regarded as the logical consequence of the theory of
Karma. But from a historical point of view many of their ethical principles,
monastic institutions and ascetic practices have been inherited from older
religiousclasses of Indian society,
since Brahmanical ascetics and Buddhists resemble them in many of their
precepts and institutions (See SBE xxii (1884) Introd. p xxii ff)".

Stages of Progress of the Soul due to Development of its
qualities - The Fourteen Gunasthan

For a simple definition of Gunsthan we may quote from the book
"Outlines of Jainism" by Shri J.L. Jaini which says as under :-

"In Jainism
fourteen stages are indicated through which the soul progresses from
impurifying matter on to final liberation. The psychical condition of the soul
due to the rising. (Udaya), settling down and partly perishing of Karma matter
(Kshyopasham) is called "Gunasthan".

However, there is more depth and meaning involved in this subject which
has been called occult Jainism or Jain Mysticism. Just as Mysticism elsewhere
e.g. Sufism involves the union of the being with God, in Jainism the Gunasthans
describe the path, modalities and pre-requisites for the bonded soul-Bahiratama
to become liberated soul or Paramatma through the path of internal progress or
by becoming Antaratma. The process begins with the soul which is at the lowest
stage from times immemorial circulating in the whirlpool of births and deaths
due to lack of true knowledge and true conduct. Since there is a divine spark
in every soul (without which it will not be a living being), it is struggling
to find its true identity and potential of becoming liberated. Thus a constant
struggle is going on between forces of darkness of unbelief (mithyatva) which
try to keep the soul tied down to the Sansar (worldly existence) on the one
hand; and forces of light or true belief (Samyaktva) which try for its
liberation on the other. In the long run there comes a chance when by reducing
its Karma load, the forces of light (Samyaktva) prevail and the soul is able to
break the shackles of Mithyatva (Unbelief), just like a piece of straw or paper
is able to escape out of a whirlpool. This is like cutting the Gordian knot and
is also called Granthi bhed in Jain terminology. Once this happens, the soul is
set on the road of rising Gunasthans. In other word the pilgrim has found his
path and the Pilgrim's Progress has begun which may ultimately lead to the liberation
of the soul though it may take millenniums and millenniums. During this
progress through different Gunsthans the soul has to encounter ups and downs as
also very unusual and unprecedented experiences known as Sreni etc. which have
been described in detail in the Karma Grantha, for those interested in detailed
study of this subject. Here it may be sufficient to give below the general
observations and rudimentary information about these processes -

Three Karnas are:

1.Yatha pravrti Karna
-

When
the soul reducing the intensity of Karma comes face to face with the Granthi or
the Gordian knot of unbelief. Success or failure depends on its own efforts.

2.Apurva Karna -

Having
succeeded in breaking the Gordian knot, the soul through further mitigation of
Karma by Rasaghat (mitigation of intensity), Stithighat (mitigation of
duration) Gunsankraman(interchange)
and such processes enters upon new vistas of unprecedented experiences of
spiritual advancement which lead to the next Karna.

3.Anivritti Karna -

Where
the worst type of Kashaya and Karma are annihilated and the soul is ready for
higher stages of spiritual development and Gunasthans.

Two Srenies (Ladders) -

These are the two spiritual ladders one of suppression/subsidence of
Karma and other of complete annihilation. Obviously only the latter can lead to
liberation; the former may lead back to lower stages, though it may temporarily
mean progress. They are named Upsham Sreni (suppression ladder) and Kshapak
Sreni (annihilation ladder) according to their nature.

Further, the Gunasthaans denote a purely spiritual exercise - the
fourteen classifications relate to the spirit or the soul though it is
embodied. The progress or regression is of the soul and is on the spiritual
scale and according to spiritual yard-sticks. It connote be seen or observed in
the physical world.

Though the stages of spiritual development relate to the soul or
are of the soul, they directly result from and are immediately caused by Karma
(matter) contaminating the soul. As such the worse and more intense the
association of Karma with the soul, lower the stage of the soul in this
categorisation. Conversely lesser and lighter the Karma load on the soul, the
higher and better is the stage it attains.

Karma may appear as the immediate cause determining gunasthans,
but since Karma in turn accrue, arise or subside by Yoga (vibration), Kashaya
(passion), Premad (negligence), Avirati (indiscipline) and Mithyatva (false
faith ) as seen earlier - these ultimately are responsible for soul's progress
or downfall. As the Yoga and Kashaya etc. are committed by the soul itselfwith or without other conditions
participating in the final and ultimate analysis, it is the soul itself which
determines its Gunasthan or its development or downfall. The manifestation of
Karma in their , different varieties and aspects like Prakritis, Udaya, Udirna,
Bandh, Satta etc are described in detail in the Karma Grantha alongwith the
relevant Gunasthana. In brief all these have found mention in the chapter on
Theory of Karma of which, this chapter may be considered as a supplement.

Though only fourteen stages are identified there are innumerable
points on the path of liberation on which the soul transits up and down or at
which it stays - just like numerous points or stations on a railways route
though the path is identified by a few important or junction stations. The soul
has been on this path since times immemorial and will be so till its final
liberation, which is its final destination being completion of spiritual development.

The Gunasthan, on which the soul may be, varies from moment to
moment depending on its Karma Udaya or Kshyopsham or Raag Dvesh or Yoga
Kashaya,just as blood pressure of a
man vaires from moment to moment. To identify the Gunasthan of a being exactly
at any moment is only possible for the Keval Gyani the Perfect Being since it
is a purely spiritual barometer; it is not possible of assessment by ordinary
beings - who can only form some idea by the external conditions, circumstances
and behaviour of the beings.

The movement of the beings from one Gunasthan to another is not
in strictly numerical order i.e. first to second and so on but the soul moves
up and down on the spiritual path according to logicalrules e.g. from first Gunasthan the soul transits
straight to the fourth, but it may regress to third or second on its path to
the first for reasons given herein-later.

We will know more about them as we briefly describe each of the
fourteen Gunasthans, in the subsequent paragraphs, First let us enumerate the
names of the fourteen Gunasthans and then describe each of them briefly as
under :-

1.Mithyadrishti
Gunasthan

2.Sasvadana-Samyagdrishti
Gunasthan

3.Samyag-mithyadrishti
Gunasthan

4.Avirat
Samyagdristi Gunasthan

5.Deshvirat
Shravak Gunasthan

6.Pramatta-Samyata-Gunasthan

7.Apramatta-Samyata-Gunasthan

8.Apurva
Karana or Nivriti Badar Gunasthan

9.Anivritti
badar Gunasthan

10.Sukhshama Sampraya
Gunasthan

11.Upshant Kashaya
Gunasthan

12.Ksheena Kashaya
Gunasthan

13.Sayogi Kevali
Gunasthan

14.Ayogi Kevali
Gunasthan.

Mithyadrishti Gunasthan

This is the lowest or first stage, wherein the soul, due to
manifestation of Mohaneeya (Deluding) Karma, does not believe in the Right Path
to salvation. The characteristic mark of this Gunasthan is perversity of
attitude towards truth; or unbelief in the truth taught by the Jina in its
entirety. The soul, at this stage, has the minimum degree of right vision and
very indistinct enlightenment - just enough that is required for a living
conscious soul. A soul may find itself in this stage abinition or may come to
it from higher stages but the reason is the same i.e. the manifestation of
Deluding or Mohaneeya Karma. From this stage a soul rises only to the fourth
stage (not to second and third ) as described later.

Sasvadan Samyagdrishti Gunasthan

This is the second higher stage where the soul finds itself for a very
short time on its downward journey to first stage, but with some taste or
memory of the still higher stage (fourth). A soul has attained the higher stage
due to arising of true belief or enlightenment for a short duration due to
suppression of Deluding (Mohaneeya) Karma but due to the re-manifestation of
the same Karma of acute type it goes back to the first stage staying for a
minimum period in the second stage with taste of true belief lingering which
has given it the name of tasteful Gunasthan. From this stage it only goes down
to first Gunasthan viz., Mithyatva.

Samyag Mithyadrishti Gunasthan

This third stage is marked by indifference towards true belief, the
soul being in a mixed state of belief and non-belief in the true doctrines.
This condition arises on account of manifestation of mixed Deluding Karma in
soul at a higher stage (Fourth) from which the soul comes down to this stage.
The stay in this third stage is also of very short duration and is
transitional, the soul going down to the first stage of complete
unbelief-Mithyatva, or making a recovery and rising upto the higher stages with
right vision.,

Avirat Samyagdrishti Gunasthan

In this stage the soul though having been blessed with Right belief and
Right Knowledge is not able to proceed on the path of Conduct in as much as it
is not capable of adopting the vows or Vratas for want of will, power and
energy. The path of salvation consists of all the three elements being right
viz., belief, knowledge and conduct, the last one consisting of vows-as seen in
Part I. Due to operation of Karma the being may have Right faith and knowledge
and even know and accept the path or vows of Right conduct, but due to weakness
it is not able to properly practice the vratas or vows. The right faith may be
due to suppression (Upsham) or annihilation (Kshya) of Faith Deluding Karma as
a result of which the being attains this stage from stage (i) Mithytva. The bar
on conduct is due to rise of conduct Deluding Karma on the other hand. As such
from this stage the way is open for the soul to rise or fall. In the case of
rise it may proceed forth to higher stages by suppressing the Karma or
annihilating them. In case of a fall it goes to stage (ii) and thence to stage
(i); or to stage (iii) and further on as stated earlier.

Deshvirat Shravaka Gunasthan

When a being gathers sufficient will and power to persevere on the path
of spiritual and moral progress, it adopts the Vows (Minor vows) meant for laymen
(Shravaka) thus partially refraining from sins ensuring partial self-control.
Thus it achieves this stage number five, though due to partial manifestation of
Deluding Karma it is still not able to completely renounce the world which is
required for the next stage. This is the highest stage possible for a layman,
hereafter all higher stages require adoption of sainthood or asceticism and
renouncing the world for achieving complete self-control. The stage is
important as it is starting point for the being to adopt Right Conduct and to
begin discarding undisciplined life-Avirat though only partly. The minor vows
have been described in part I, and the followers thereof are the laymen and
laywomen who constitute the two centres of pilgrimage - Teerth according to
Lord Mahavir.

Prammatta Samyat Gunasthan

In this stage of spiritual development, the soul renounces the world
completely ensuring complete self-control by adopting all the vows prescribed
for a saint or Muni (Major vows) for purity of conduct. However, occasionally
it tends towards negligence or Pramad, hence the name Prammat or negligent
samyat or saint or Muni. Needless to repeat that these manifestations are due
to the Karma bondage of the particular type giving its result. Depending upon
the dispensation of Karma the being may land down in stage (v) Deshvirat or
even in stage (iv) of Avirat Gunasthan from this stage. However, if it is able
to adjure negligence (Pramad) it may progress to the next higher stage No.
(vii) Apramatt Samyat Gunasthan. The salient features of this stage is
completely disciplined life by adoption of all the five Major Vows (vrata)
described in Pt. I. This means complete dedication to the practice of Three
Jewels the Three Ratna - Right faith, Right Knowledge and Right conduct which
is prescribed as the royal road leading towards liberation. Thus, in this stage
second cause of Bondage of Karma i.e. Avirati is also discarded by the soul.

Apramatt Samyat Gunasthan

Herein are saints who have not only adopted all vows and self control
but who adjure negligence (Pramad) completely. From this stage of spiritual
development the soul may go down to stage (vi) of Negligence. Or it may
progress on the pathways called srenies which may be the Suppression (Upsham)
or Annihilation (Kshaya) of the Karma known as Upsham sreni or Kshapak sreni
respectivley.

If it goes to stage (vi) it can come back to this stage (vii) and this
process can continue for a long time, till one of the srenies is attained. In
respect of srenies also, only kshya sreniannihilation of Karma can ensure
complete liberation (and not the other Upshma sreni). The inclination and
preparation for these srenies takes the being to the next stage number eight
called Apurva Karna Gunasthan.

From this stage No. (vii) to stage (x) the soul purifies itself by
progressively reducing passions or Kashayas-mithyatva, avirati, and pramad
having been discarded already. This stage is therefore, the beginning of the
four stages of progressive purity which prepare the soul for the higher stages
xi, xii and xiii. At the same time this stage being on the border is full of
chances of downfall of the soul to lower stages due to Karma manifestation and
due to pramad (negligence) etc.

Apurva Karana or Nivratti Badar Gunasthan

As implied by its name this stage involves unprecedented (Apurva)
attainments by the soul indicating for it the path of liberation. These are
destruction of intensity and duration of bound karma called Rasaghat or
Stithighat respectively. Through such processes of purification the soul
prepares to ascend one of the two srenis i.e. either the Upshama sreni
(Subsidence ladder) or Kshapak sreni (annihilation ladder). Some of the other
processes the soul undergoes for the sake of rise on the srenies (which
actually starts in the ninth Gunasthan) are called Gunasreni i.e. reduction in
duration’s of karma and Gunsankraman i.e. conversion of harsh karma into mild
areas. All these important events in the evolution of the soul are unusual and
unprecedented, therefore, the name of this stage is Apurva or Unprecendented
Gunastha. Lest it be ignored, the fact is reiterated that all these events in
the sphere of activities of the soul are due to the Karma - old and new and
their manifestation, suppression or annihilation.

Anivritti Badar Gunasthan

A stage of even greater purity of thought than the earlier one, this
stage takes the soul to the verge of enlightenment. In this stage the soul
embarks upon one of the two srenies or ladder - Upshama (suppressing of Karma)
or khsapak (Annihilation of Karma) which determine its future destiny. However
there is the possibility Iurking in this stage of Deluding (Mohaneeya) Karma
manifesting in their crude (badar) form and therefore, the other nomencalture.
The striking feature of this stage is high degree of suppression or destruction
of Karma with resultant purity of the soul and progress to the next stage.
However, if the soul allows itself to be afflicted by Karma it may go back to
lower stages too.

Suksham Sampraya Gunasthan

In this stage of high degree of purity of the soul there do remain some
traces of Deluding Karma (Mohaneeya) in the form of minutest degree of subtle
greed. If this is also overcome the soul progresses to stage xi or xii. If the
subtle greed is supressed by Upshama; the stage xi is reached. If it is
annihilated by Kshaya, stage xii is reached.

Hence forth the distinction between the two srenies gets marked as
there is no liberation from Upshama sreni, while the Khshapak sreni leads to
Moksha - as explained later.

This is the stage upto which both Yoga and Kashaya (passions) are
present, though the latter is of a very minute extent or Suksham degree. It
does not allow the soul to go to higher stages, xi and xii which require
suppression or destruction of passions respectively. If this does not happen,
the soul may sink back to lower stages afficted by not only Kashyas but also
negligence, indiscipline and unbelief.

Upshant Kashaya Gunasthan

By suppressing completely all the Kashaya including subtle greed (Tenth
Gunastha) the soul attains this stage for a short while. However, it is only
suppression or subsidence (and not annihilation) of the Karma, like dirt
settling down in water. Therefore, as soon as this suppression or upshaman
stops, Karma manifest themselves and the soul sinks back to the lower stage.
Further in this stage the soul is hampered by Gyanavarniya Karma and,
therefore, it is still chadmast. For obvious reasons this Gunasthan lasts for a
very short duration, and as there is no scope for rise the soul descends to lower
stages even landing in the first, the lowest Gunasthan. The depth to which the
soul may sink depends upon the Karma of particular type and the Kashaya or
Passions afflicting the soul. However, such a soul can stage a recovery even in
the same lifetime and attain liberation passing through different stages
including Khsapak sreni. In any case the souls that have once touched this
Gunasthan of Upshanta Moha, must reach their destination of Nirvan though it
may take time; the maximum limit of which is ardha pudgala paravartan.

Ksheen Kashaya Gunasthan

The soul that is able to destroy completely the subtle greed-remanents
of Mohaneeya (Deluding) Karma in tenth Gunasthan attains this stage, as it is
on the Kshapak sreni, bypassing the (xi) stage which was for the Upshama sreni.
This is a stage of almost the highest purity of meditation, whereby the soul
also destroys the other three Karma viz.; Gyanavarniya, Darshanavrniya and
Antraya. In the end of this stage the soul becomes omniscient - Kevalgyani- and
enters the (xiii) stage of Sayogi-Kevali which is the stage of omniscience.
However, in this stage the soul is not Perfect, but only Chadmast as the name
of this Gunasthan indicates. This is due to the part Bondage of Major or Ghati
Karmas, which the soul sheds in this stage for progress to the next stage of
perfect knowledge etc. This is made possible by the soul as it has given up
passion or Kashay completely and resultantly the Ghati Karma are eliminated. As
such this stage is important as a stepping stone to liberation or Moksha.

Sayogi Kevali Gunasthan

This is the stage when all the Kashayas or passions are destroyed and,
therefore, the Ghati and Samprayik Karma are eliminated and the soul is blessed
with Perfect Rationalism (Samyaktava) Perfect Perception (Darshan) Perfect
Knowledge (Gyan) and Perfect Prowess (Veerya). It is the stage of Godhood known
as Kevali or Jina or Arihant or Teerthanker in Jain terminology. Only Aghati
Karma remain which keep the soul embodied and they also come and go without further
binding the soul. A lot can be written on this stage which is not possible of
complete description by words. Here only Yoga or simple activity remain, but
since it is passionless, it does not bind the soul. In Vedanta this stage is
known as Jeevanmukta, as such beings though embodied and in this world are not
bound by Karmas and are beyond the world. Such a state may last for a short
time, but the duration may be very long too. It is such souls called
teerthankar who lay the foundations of the true path and preach the true
religion for the guidance of generations of laymen. Therefore they are given
precedence over the liberated souls- the Siddhas- in the Navkar Mantra in
praise of the Panch Parmesthi of Jains (dealt with in Pt. I) which begins with
Namo Arihantanam.

Ayogi Kevali Gunasthan

This is the last and momentary stage of duration equal to time taken in
uttering five small vowels. During this even Yoga stops and all remaining
Aghati karmas are simultaneously exhausted by the soul and it leaves the body
and attains liberation or Nirvan-free from further births and deaths in the
world. This is achieved by the soul engaging in the highest type of meditation
known as Shukla Dhyan, which stops all types of subtle as well as gross
physical, vocal and mental activities or Yoga. The result is a state of
complete motionlessness, internal and external, known as Saileshikarna, for the
short duration equal to time taken in uttering five vowels. This is followed by
liberation or salvation or Mukti or Moksha or Nirvan, not only from the body,
but also from worldly existence and also Karma Bondage for all times to come.

This brief description of Gunasthan can be closed with some further
remarks to throw light on their salient features from the point of view of
spiritual development. The first three stages are marked by external activity
of the soul, when it is involved with things other than itself and the soul is
Bahiratma or Extrovert. From stage four to stage twelve it becomes Introvent or
Antratma- concerned with its own welfare. In the last two stages the soul
attains Godhood and can be called Parmatama - the perfect soul.

From the point of view of Karma Bondage it has to be noted that the
five causes (Mithyatva, Avirati, Pramad, Kashaya and Yoga) thereof, determine
(along with the Bondage) the stages or Gunasthan, and their presence or absence
results in regression or progress of the soul on these stages, respectively.
When all the five causes of Bondage persist in the soul it remains in first
stage of Mithyatva and Third stage of Samyag Mithyadristhi. When the soul gets
rid of Mithyatva or False vision but if the other four causes subsist, it can
rise upto stages number two, four and five-Sasvadan, Avirat and Deshvirat. By
getting rid of Avirati or Undisciplined life the soul can reach stage number
six-Pramatt Virat-because Pramad or negligence is persisting. By getting rid of
Pramad the soul reaches stage seven or Apramat Virat to stage Ten-Suksham
Samrpaya. Thus from stage (vii) to stage (x) only two causes of Bondage remain
viz.; Kashaya (Passions) and Yoga. By freeing itself from passions or Kashay
the soul can reach upto stages (xi) (xii) and (xiii). Upsham Moha, Kshina Moha
and Sayogi Kevali. At the end of stage number (xiii) the soul stops Yoga also
and enters stage (xiv) i.e. Ayogi Kevali for a very brief moment and
relinquishes the body thus achieving liberation or Mukti. This will be more
clear from the following statement :-

Cause of Karma Bondage Present

Gunasthan

Number ---- Name

(A)

1. Mithyatva (False Faith)

First- Mithyadristhi

2. Avirati (Indiscipline)

Third - Samyag-mithyadrishti

3. Pramad (Negligence)

4. Kashaya (Passions)

5. Yoga (Vibrations of the soul)

(B)

2. Avirati

Second - Sasvadan

3. Pramad

Fourth - Avirat

4. Kashaya

Fifth - Deshvirat

5. Yoga(Four)

(C)

3. Pramad

Six - Prammat - Samyat

4. Kashaya

5. Yoga (Three)

(D)

4. Kashaya and

Seventh- Aprammat - Samyat

5. Yoga (Two)

Eight - Apurva Karana

Ninth - Anivriti badar

Tenth - Suksham Sampraya

(E)

5. Yoga (alone)

Eleventh - Upshama - Kashaya

Twelfth - Khsina - Kashaya

Thirteenth - Sayogi Kevali

(F)

None

Fourteenth - Ayogi Kevali

It will thus be clear from the above that the whole scheme of Gunasthan
is derived according to the principle of decreasing sinfulness and increasing
purity of the soul and lessening of the Karma bondage. To progress on this
scale, the being has to eliminate each of the causes leading to Karma bondage
in the successive order stated above (i.e. Mithyatva, Avirati, Pramad, Kashaya
and Yoga) one by one, and thus bring refinement in its own qualities or the
Guna, and therefore the name-fourteen stages of Progress of the soul-the
Fourteen Gunasthan.

Note -It has not been
possible to translate some technical terms used in this chapter as elsewhere.
Original terms have therefore been used. Even the meanings given in English are
approximate.

The Five Bodies

Dueto the Karma connection the
soul, interlalia, acquires or is clothed in bodies through which it carries on
its activities, discharging old karma (and generally acquiring more in the
process). In the chapter on Karma, while discussing Naam or Physique
Determining Karma, one subdivision has been noted called Bodies or Sharir Naam
Karma. These Karmas are of five types and result in the soul acquiring five
types of Bodies viz. (1) Audarik (Physical), (2) The Vaikriya (Transformation),
(3) the Aharaka (Translocation), (4) the Taijasa (Fiery) and (5) the Karmana
(Karmic). Some light is thrown on these in the discussion that follows as these
are important and relevant in Jain Metaphysics as well as in the day to day
experience. It may be reiterated in advance that the Bodies are found with only
unliberated or worldly souls, the liberated or mukta souls are free from bodies
of any type and are also known as "Ashariri" or Bodiless.

The five types of Bodies are described below in brief -

1.The Gross Physical
Body or Audarik Sharir -

As the
name indicates this is the type of Body which is gross or solid and which can
be felt by the senses, such as eyes, which can see it. This is the body
belonging to human beings (Manushya Gati) as well as animals and plants
(Trinyanch Gati)Amongst all the five
types of Bodies this has the least number of Pudgals, but it occupies the
maximum space as the distribution of the Pudgals is the least subtle.
Therefore, it is considered Gross or solid and is capable of being broken or
burnt.

2.The subtle
Transformation Body or Vaikriya Sharir -

This
type of body is the fine invisible body occupied by Godly beings (Dev Gati) and
the Denizens of Hell (Narak Gati). The occupants of such Bodies can make them
invisible and also transform their shapes at will and the bodies are,
therefore, also called Transformation Bodies as Vaikriya means transformation.
Such bodies occupy less space than the Physical Bodies, though the number of
pudgals forming such subtle bodies are innumerable times more than those of the
Physical Bodies. The reason is the fineness or suksham nature of such Pudgals.
Human beings can also attain such bodies through Labdhies or Purification. Such
Bodies can travel in a limited part of the Universe (Loka) knowing no
impediments.

3.The Translocation
body or Aharak Sharir -

This
is a special type of Body created by developed souls (Labdhi Dhari) for a short
time (less than 48 minutes) for travelling to other galaxies (Dwipa) to pay
respects to or consult the Teerthankars there, to clear doubts. This body is
described as white in colour, one hand length in size, handsome, and capable of
travelling millions of miles in one samaya crossing all impediments in a
limited part of Universe-Loka. It arises out of the head of the creator and is
reabsorbed by the physical body after performing its duties. This translocation
body is finer than Vaikriya or Transformation Body but possesses pudgals which
are innumerable times more than the latter.

4.The Fiery Body or
Taijas Sharir -

This
type of body is formed by fire pudgals and provides external glow and internal
digestive power. It can also be used by the powerful beings to destroy the
opponents, when angry when its colour is red. Similarly if they are kind, the
ascetics can use it to end pestilence etc.,for amelioration of the sufferings of general public, its colour being
white. This body contains pudgals which are infinite times (Anant Guna) more
than the aharak or translocation body even then it is finer. This type of body
can pass through all types of impediments throughout the Universe or Loka and
is present in every worldly being. At the same time it is imperceptible to the
senses e.g. the eyes can not see it.

5.The Karma Body or
Karman Sharir -

It has
been noted earlier (Chapter on Karma) that due to activity (Yoga) and passions
(Kashaya ) the soul attracts matter or Karma Pudgals which bind it by becoming
the Karma Body, or Karman Sharir, the fifth type of body. This is the finest
body occupying the least space, yet containing infinite times more pudgals than
the Fiery Body or Taijas Sharir. This can also pass through all impediments
throughout the Universe and is a constant companion of the worldly being. It is
the root cause of the worldly existence in all its forms and aspects including
the other types of Bodies.The Karma
Body is constantly renewing itself as old karma matter is shed after giving results
and further new Karma matter is acquired till liberation or Mukti, when all
Karma are exhausted as also all types of bodies and bodily existence. It is
also imperceptible to the senses, and accompanies the soul, on death, to the
place of new birth, where it (Karma body) forms the basis of the other new
bodies that the soul (jeeva) may acquire.

Some futher general
observations

The association of soul with bodies imply its bondage by Karma
and fettering of its unlimited powers and is therefore to be got rid of. From
the essential point of view the continuous beginnigless change of bodies
through births and deaths involves circulation in the world and is, therefore,
a curse-an evil. However the bodily existence is also a means of destroying the
Karma and can, therefore, be a blessing as a vehicle of attainments of
liberation or Mukti. Thus the true followers of the path of liberation put the
evil body to good use by involving it in shubh Karma-good deeds-as also in
Penance-Tapa. This is the real concept of bodies and bodily existence from truly
Anekantvadi or non-onesided point of view.

All these five types of Bodies are material
or Pudgalik i.e., made of Pudgals or pudgal-skandh. However, each subsequent
category of Bodies contain much larger number of Pudgals than its predecessor
(type of body) in the order stated in paraThe five types of
Bodies are described below in brief -above. Inspite of this the subsequent type
of body is finer than the earlier and occupies less space. Thus the
Transformation body (Vaikriy Sharir) contains a much larger quantum of Pudgal
than the Physical or Audarik Body and is also finer. This will be clear from
the example of cotton and steel, where the latter may contain greater amount of
Pudgal but occupies less space.

A worldly soul or beings is always connected with the two types
of Bodies viz., Karman, and Taijas Bodies for the obvious reason that without
these the worldlyexistence is not
possible. As such this association is beginningless (anadi) but it ends with
the liberation of the soul. In addition it may have the Vaikriya or
Transformation Body as in the case of angels, or Audarik or Physical Bodies as
in the case of human beings. In such cases these bodies go together. Some human
being with requisite powers may acquire either the Vaikriya (Transformation)
body or the Aharak or Translocation Body which will mean four types of bodies
with one soul. However, since Aharak or Vaikriya bodies cannot be acquired
together, the maximum number of Bodies connected with one worldly being is
four.

The Central Philosophy of Jainism - Anekantavad, The Doctrine
of Non-one-sidedness

We take up this subject with some hesitation- it may be admitted in
advance. The subject of Anekantavada or the Doctrine of Non-onesideness is very
difficult (to explain) and yet not so difficult. It is very complicated as well
as very simple. It is a matter of common, everyday experience and yet so remote
that it defies easy understanding.

At the same time the subject is so important that it has been rightly
called the central philosophy of Jainism. It is one of the most significant
contributions of Jain thinkers to the realm of intellectual and philosophical
deliberations; just as the Jain concept of non-violence and Karamvada are
pacesetters in the field of human progress in ethical and metaphysical fields.
An attempt is, therefore, being made to deal with the subject in simple
language so that the student of Jainism may take first steps on this road and
if his interest is aroused, this attempt shall be considered successful. For
those so interested there is no dearth of literature on this subject, as for
the last 2500 years,since Lord
Mahaveer, a great many savants have examined this subject exhaustively and
enriched its knowledge with their contributions.

What is Anekantavad - It is difficult
to find a complete and exactly equivalent term. As such this can be treated as
a terminus techniques. However, it has been variously called as the Philosophy
of Non-absolutism (Satkari Mookerjee), the Theory of the many sided nature of
reality, the Philosophy of harmonizing-together (Hari Bhadra) and Theory of
manifoldness. These nomenclatures throw considerable light on the various
aspects of the theory of Anekantavada. However, one term which encompasses the
meaning almost completely and can be called an equivalent is "Theory of
Non-one-sidedness" used by Dr. B.K. Matilal (from whose lectures published
by L.D. Institute Ahmedabad considerable help has been taken in this article)
which is used in the title of this article.

For understanding the full meaning of "non-one-sidedness" or
anekantavada, one has to understand what is meant by "one sidedness"
or Ekant which is denied by this Theory. To a layman the ordinary meaning would
appear as holding one side or one view steadfastly. It is well known that with
the philosophical development a number of schools of thought developed in
India-as anywhere else - like Samkhya, Bauddha, Vedanta, Nyaya and Mimansa.
Even before the ideas crystallized in such established schools, thoughts of
different types were aired by different thinkers like those seen in the Vedas,
Upnishadas and other scriptures. These concerned the various metaphysical
propositions like different aspects of reality, soul, universe and others. When
such different view points emerged during development of thought, and one
school asserted its metaphysical thesis, it was rejected by another school
which put forward its own contradictory proposition, Each school mustered
arguments in favour of its own thesis and those rejecting the opposite propositions.
This verged on dogmatism.So much so
that one school refused to entertain the point of view of the other side
holding it as false and considering only its own point of view as the gospel -
absolute - truth. This led to intolerance. Such dogmatist and intolerant
approach is considered "ekant" or one-sided philosophical approach in
Jain view and such one-sidedness is considered as equivalent to falsehood or
false knowledge and false perception - Mithya Gyan and Mithya Darshan.

Anekantavada or the Doctrine
of non-one-sidedness is negation of or is opposed to the above mentioned
Ekant or one-sided approach-as the prefix "an" or "non"
would suggest. According to the non-onesided approach while presenting one's
point of view on any subject due consideration is also shown to the opposite
point of view. This approach is based on the acceptance of the manifoldness of
reality or in other words, acceptance of the fact that every proposition or
thesis has many aspects - all of which have some element of truth from
different standpoints. As such a philosophical proposition or metaphysical
thesis can be true if it is viewed from a particular stand-point. Therefore,
the doctrine ofnon-one-sidedness not
only tolerates the view point of the opposite side, but also tries to
understand the basis or standpoints of the divergent propositions with a view
to reconcile the apparant contradictions. The position will be clear if
illustrated with the too well known story of the elephant and the six blind
men.

It is said that six blind men approached an elephant and each ofthem caught hold of a different part of the
body of the elephant. Each one of the blind men, therefore, formed his own
image of the huge animal. The man who caught the tail of the elephant thought
it to be like a long rope. The one holding the leg of the animal thought it was
like a piller. The third one who got the ear in his hands thought the elephant
was like a huge fan. the fourth man who held the trunk of the elephant
considered that it was like a python. Another holding the stomach thought it
was like a drum. The one who got on the back of the elephant considered that it
was like a platform.

Since they were certain that they were right in their conjectures each
of the six blind men held fast to his view about the elephant holding it
sacrosant, at the same time calling the views held by the others as absolutely
false. This led to acrimony and would have resulted in a fight, but for the
intervention of a wise man who explained the correct position to the six blind
men, by making them feel the other parts of the elephant. They, then, realized
that though each ofthem was partly
correct in his imagination of the elephant, but the others were equally correct
in their conjectures of the animal from their stand-points and that the true
and total picture of the elephant could be appreciated by understanding the
views held by each one of them with the reasons therefor.

In the above illustrative story the six blind men, when they held fast
to their individual picture of the elephant as a rope or a pillar, were
adopting an ekantvadi or one-sided approach, which was obviously false. When
they appreciated the view points of the others in addition to their own, and
the reasons therefor - thus knowing the true nature of the elephant they were
on the right road of Anekantavad or non-one-sidedness.

From asuperficial view the
doctrine may appear too simple and obvious and thus insignificant. It may not
be considered justified that so much importance has been attached to it in the
philosophical sphere that it is considered a major contribution of Jainism.
However, if it is remembered that much violence has resulted from intellectual
differences, then any attempt towards harmony is a major step in the right
direction.

It will be more clear if we take the example from philosophical
deliberation of the nature of Reality (Satt) which is fundamental to all
philosophies. The Vedanta philosophy led by Sankaracharya held that Reality
(Satt) is permanent and unchanging. The Buddhist philosophy on the contrary
held that there is nothing permanent and the Reality or Satt is always changing
being in a state of flux, because there is instantaneous and automatic
origination and destruction. History is witness to the fierce controversies resulting
from these extreme ekantvadi or one-sided positions which ultimately led to
almost complete banishment of Buddhism from India, the country of its origin.
Jainism reconciling both these extreme-ekanta-positions, holds that reality is
characterized by a simultaneous operation of origination (Utpad) and
destruction (Vyaya) as well as permanence (Dhrauvya) a truly non-one-sided
(Anekantavada) approach.

This is the famous proposition of the Jain Text - Tattvarth Sutra
(5.29) "UTPAD VYAYA DHRAUVYA YUKTAM SAT"i.e. Reality is characterised by origination, destruction as well
as permanence. It implies that reality is not "Permanent" but also
permanent, it is not only in a flux but also in a flux. Accordingly an object
of knowledge must have three inseparable aspects. (i) a permanent substance -
the inherent qualities (ii) destruction or abandonment of old shape and (iii)
origination or acquisition of a new shape. Applying this concept to a substance
like the "Soul”, it is permanent when viewed from its essential quality of
"consciousness' which it never gives up, it is destroyed when it given up
a particular body and it again originates when it is reborn, as another being.
This can be applied to all cases uniformly e.g. when a bangle is broken, it is
its destruction, but the continuing gold content remain permanent, and when
rings are made of that gold it amounts to origination (though only its shape
has been changed).

The above discussion shows that Anekantvada is an attempt to reconcile
so called different and opposite points of view by understanding them and as
such it is rightly called a doctrine of synthesis and assimilation as well as
toleration and understanding. This takes us to the philosophic source ororigin of this doctrine which lies in the
concept of non-violence of Jainism and which was responsible to a great extent
for the development of non-one-sided approach- anekant attitude in Jain
philosophy.

Sources of Anekantavada : The concept of
Non-violence with its special and significant features is an unique
contribution of Jainism to the progress of human civilization. This has been
discussed in Pt. - I. To recapitulate in brief, since all beings want to live
and live comfortably-want to have full and free experience of all their
vitalities (pranas)-any attempt to infringe upon such freedom is apparent or
gross form of violence. In its fine form any reckless activity-Pramad-also
amounts to violence though it may or may not result in injury to living beings.
The aforesaid attempts or recklessness can be in thought, word, and deed and
abjuring all these is non-violence. There is also the positive side of
non-violence which includes kindness and compassion, peace and pity etc.
Extension of such non-violent attitude to the intellectual and verbal planes
was natural as one cannot be truly non-violent unless one abjures violence in
thought also as much as in words and deed. Non-violence is indivisible in as
much as one cannot be physically non-violent and intellectually violent,
specially when it is the intellect that guides all physical activity.
Therefore, the Jain concept of respect for the life of others led to the
principle of respect for the views of others, which formed the basis of
"anekanta" or non-one-sided doctrine. This involved not only
toleration of the opposite doctrines or different views but also investigation
of the reasons for the difference and further attempts at reconciliation of the
same.`

Historically speaking, since non-one-sidedness or anekantavada was an
offshoot or corollary of non-violence it can be presumed to exist in Jain
thought and belief abinitio-alongwith non-violence which is the core or
fundamental principle of Jainism. However, its methodology, refinement and
accompaniments like Naya-Vada or doctrine of standpoints and Syadvada " or
"doctrine of may be" might have evolved later.

It has also been stated that the theory of non-one-sidedness developed
from Lord Mahaveer's handling of the process of Vibhajyavad or analytical
system. No doubt the ancient scripture like Sutra Kritanga describe Lord
Mahaveer as "Vibhajyavadi" but Lord Buddha has also been described as
such as he also followed the analytical method. But Vibhajyavad can also, in
its broader spectrum, imply a non-dogmatic and exploratory approach to
philosophical and a metaphysical subjects. In this sense it not only includes a
system of analysis but also that of synthesis-differentiation as well as
integration. Lord Mahaveer not only analysed the subject but also developed a
philosophy of synthesis, toleration and understanding of different standpoints
or pre-suppositions to reconcile and resolve the disputes. This system
developed into and came to be designated as "Anekantavada" or the
"Theory" of non-one-sidedness.

Some examples may clarify the position. Suppose a question is asked
"whether A is not B" ? The answer from one group can be "Yes, A
is B", while another group may say "No, A is B". However,
Anekantvadi approach will be "A is B from one point of view", and
"A is not B from another point of view". Just as a man is a husband
from the point of view of his wife, brother from the point of view of his
sister and so on. Similarly in Anekantvad a thing is correct from one point of
view and wrong from another point of view.

To take exact quotation from Jain Shastra Bhagwati, to the question
whether the universe was finite or infinite Lord Mahaveer has replied that from
the standpoint of area/measurement the Universe was finite, but from the
standpoint of time the universe was infinite. This brings us to the subject
ofTheory of standpoints or Nayavad,
and the Theory of Maybe or "Syadvad" which are considered two wings
of the Theory of Non-one-sidedness or Anekantvada. Before taking up these two
theories a couple of observations are considered necessary. Firstly, the
assimilative aspect of Anekatvada pre-suppose the existence of well developed
philosophical schools amongst whom serious controversies came to the fore,
which justified synthesis and assimilation. Some such schools were Sankhaya,
Baudha, Nyaya, Mimansa etc. Another factor was introduction of use of Sanskrit
language in Jain literature, which was earlier confined to Prakrit or
Ardhmagadhi. Thus though the seed of Anekant existed in Jain thought earlier,
it grew, flowered and bore fruits later along with other schools and then only
discussion of Anekant gathered strength and its details multiplied.

Secondly, though Anekantavad implies acceptance of manifoldness of
reality, it should be clearly understood that a simple joint assertion of
contrary predicates about a subject will not amount to indication of
Anekantavad. Further though anekanta approach permits acceptance of contrary or
contradictory propositions from different stand points the ideas challenging
the fundamental truth or basis principles can in no way be entertained under
the garb of Anekantavad. For example consciousness is considered a hall-mark of
the soul or jeeva in Jainism, as such it cannot be held to be without
consciousness from any standpoint.

To conclude this general-preliminary-survey of Anekantvad, we may refer
to Dr. Y.J. PADMARAJIAH, who mentions the following five types of philosophy
considered from the point of view of the nature of reality in his famous book
"The Jaina Theory of Reality and Knowledge" :

1.Philosophy of
Being or Identity e.g. Vedanta

2.Philosophy of
Difference or Change e.g. Buddhism

3.Philosophy
subordinating Difference to identity e.g. The Samkhya.

4.Philosophy
subordinating Identity to Difference e.g. The Vaisesika.

5.Philosophy
co-ordinating both Identity and Difference e.g. The Jaina view of reality.

Thus Jainism meets the extremes and presents a view of reality which
comprehends the various sides of reality to give a synthetic picture of the
whole. It recognises the principle of distinction and develops the
comprehensive scheme of Anekanta realism. Anekanta is the "most consistent
form of realism; as it allows the principle of distinction to run its full
course until it reaches its logical terminus on the theory of manifold
reality".

Nayavad or Doctrine of standpoints

We now take up the subject of Naya, which, as hinted above,
enables proper view and appreciation of true nature of things through
intelligent assessment of their different aspects from different standpoints.
There are two means for acquiring knowledge of any object-Paramana (proof) and
Naya (stand-point) (Tatvarthsutra 1-6). Since an object has a manifold
character or many aspects, these can be comprehended entirely by the omniscient
only. However to understand one aspect of an object or to view it from one
stand-point is Naya, and to understand many aspects of an object is Praman. For
example to understand the soul from one stand-point that it has consciousness
is Nayavad, but to appreciate the soul from its many features like non-material
nature, eternal existence, conscious quality etc. is Praman. In other words
Naya is a part of Praman and Praman is a collection of Naya. Thus Praman is
compared to an ocean while Naya are like ocean water in different pitchers (Raj
Vartik-Akalanka).

While other schools acquired knowledge of objects through
"Praman", Jainism used the method of Nayavad in addition, as the
former may not illuminate all the aspects fully and individually. At the same
time it is always necessary to keep in mind that according to Nayavad one
aspect is being revealed from amongst innumerable aspects which are equally
important, and the knowledge so revealed is coloured or conditioned by the
particular point of view or stand point-failure to so remember will lead to
confusion and ekantvad. Therefore the whole truth or complete nature of reality
will be revealed by pooling together the knowledge revealed by the stand-point
or Naya, which though contradicting each other separately when combind lead to
truth. Here an interesting example may be quoted from Naya Karnika of Vinay
Vijay who says that "just as different smaller feudal lords, who may be
opposed to each other, when commanded by the Emperor-Chakarvati-combine
together to render him proper service, the different Naya or standpoints when
combined reveal the complete and whole truth".

Thus nayavad and naya properly utilised become the tools or
instruments for application of Anekantavada or doctrine of non-one-sidedness in
practice enabling a complete and proper grasp of knowledge on the one hand, and
understanding and reconciliation of different points of view on the other.

Since a substance has innumerable aspects, it can be viewed from
innumerable stand-points and therefore there can be as many (innumerable) Naya.
That would make the comprehension of all the Naya and the object impossible. As
such the acharyas have grouped or classified the naya-standpoint-into certain
categories-which though varying have largely common features. The first and
major classification of Naya is in two groups (i) Dravyarthik Naya or substance
related standpoint and (ii) Paryarthik Naya or modification related standpoint.
The first group of Naya deals with stand-points that relate to the substance or
the general characteristic like viewing the sea from the point of view of water
only. The second group of Naya relate to the special features of the object
which may be subject to modification, or which are special e.g. viewing the sea
from the stand-point of sour taste of its water.

The classifications or groupings of Naya-

There are many classifications but according to Tatvarth Sutra there
are five classes with further subdivisions of some of them. These are:

Naigam (the common or non-distinguished)

Sangrah (the general)

Vyavahar (the practical)

Rjusutra (the straight thread)

Shabda (the verbal)

which are described below in brief :

Naigam Naya or the common standpoint :

In this group are included those naya or stand points which relate to
and are expressed in commonly used terms according to local tradition without
any particular distinguishing features of the object. They are divided into two
sub-categories viz. Desh Paripekshi (General) and Sarva Paripekshi (Specific).
Thus while going to cut wood, one may say he is going to make a table or while
calling `taxi' `taxi' one may actually be calling the taxi driver. Such
statements or ideas are included in Naigam category of Naya. Such statements
are considered true according to Naigam Naya as these are acceptable by local
tradition and common usage though strictly speaking they may not be quite
correct. For obvious reasons this naya has widest scope and application.

Sangrah or general -

These stand-points or Naya encompass those statements or ideas that
have between them some common or general features of the object, ignoring the
other specific and differing claims or marks. The word Sangrah means
collection. As such under this Naya is implied a method by which separate
entities are brought under one class or notion. Thus when it is claimed that
everything is Sat (being), it is perfectly understandable from Sangrah Naya or
stand-point, though it leaves out the element of Asat (Nonbeing).

As such it lays emphasis on the Universal ignoring diverse features.
Absolute monism or Vedanta philosophy are notable examples. Jainism, however,
holds it to be a partial point of view and one of the Nayas only. Its scope is
more limited than Naigam Naya.

Vyavhar or Practical -

This group of naya though complementary to item (ii) above Sangarh
Naya-further classifies the object into groups keeping their specific
characters in view and looks at them from the special standpoints. On the basis
of Sangrah Naya and after describing the things in a collective form it is
necessary to find out their special characteristics. That special character is
called Vyavhar Naya. For example when we utter the word "medicine" it
includes all kinds of medicines but when we say allopathic, ayurvedic or
homeopathic medicine, then we can understand its speciality. This can further
be divided by its name, patent, quality use etc. These divisions are examples
of Vyavahar Naya and have a tendency towards greater exactitude. (This Vyavahar
Naya is different from the other Vyavahar Naya dealt with in para below).

Raju Sutra or Straight Thread

This naya requires consideration of the ideas like reality etc. as the
direct grasp of here and now-ignoring the past and future but in the present
Paryay or mode of a thing. Raju means simple and sutra means knowledge.
Supposing a man was a Minister and now he is not on the post. Thus his past is
of no use. Similarly a person is nominated Minister, his future is meaningless
in terms of Raju Sutra. Only present is recognised by Raju Sutra Naya making
the identification more easy and scope more narrow. The Buddhist Philosophy of
Kshanikvada is an example of this Naya.

Shabda or the Verbal

This naya relies on the meaning of the words for viewing the objects in
question. Some schools of thought rely on words and the meaning thereof to
explain the nature of things. According to Jain thinking, such understanding
may be true and may throw light on the subject-though partially. This will be
true from Shabda Naya or Verbal point of view. There are further subdivisions
of this Naya to make the understanding more easy and exact.

Of the five nayas mentioned Naigam (the
common or non-distinguished), Sangrah (the general), Vyavahar (the practical)
these three are Dravyarthic Naya, or substance related and Rjusutra (the
straight thread) and Shabda (the verbal) are Paryarthic Naya or modification
related standpoints.

Another major divisions of Naya is (i)
Nishchaya or intrinsic or determination stand-point and (ii) Vyavhar or common
usage or worldly behaviour stand point which is applied quite frequently in day
to day parlance. The first implies the real or the ultimate meaning or
interpretation of an object while the latter involves the apparent or the
general superficial view. Thus for example from Nishchya Naya or stand point a
soul is independent, self-existed and uncontaminated by matter, from Vyavahar
stand point it can be called as involved in Karma as well as the cycle of birth
and death. Such classification of naya or standpoints enables identification or
distinction of objects or theories according to particular class of naya. Thus
it can be said that from Naigam Naya a particular object or statement is true
while from Sangrah Naya another statement is so true. Thus it resolves
controversies that may otherwise arise.

The Four Nikshepa

A brief mention may be made of the term Nikshepa which is used by some
scholars in addition to the Naya as a means to analyse and correctly understand
the interpretation or meaning of any particular term by referring to the
context. These Nikshepa (or Nyas as mentioned in Tatvarth Sutra) are four in
the least and may be many more. These are (i) Nam Nikshep (Name) (ii) Sthapna
Nikshep (Attributory) (iii) Dravya Nikshep (Proximate) and (iv) Bhav Nikshep
(Intrinsic or Real). To illustrate the four Nikshepa it is stated that if a
person is named King, even without any real qualities of a King, the term will
be so understood according to Naam Nikshepa, The picture or statue of a king
will also convey the idea of king according to Sthapana Nikshep and if a person
was a ruler in the past he may be termed king for all times according to Dravya
Nikshep. Though in all these cases the nomenclature king will not be justified
by facts. Only the person with all qualities of a king and ruling presently
should be called king which will be correct according to Bhav Nikshep.

The Nikshepa of word helps to arrive at the correct meaning, at the
same time explaining how the particular word is used at a particular place. Of
course the real sense is conveyed by Bhav Nikshepa. As stated earlier these are
aids to the application of Naya and sometimes considered as part and parcel of
the same. Some scholars even consider that they (Nikshep) are superfluous and a
duplication as the first three Nikshepas are covered by Dravyarthik naya and
the last one is covered by Paryarthik Naya.

Before concluding this brief discussion of Naya (standpoints) or
Nayavad, it may be added that purpose is not only to acquire knowledge from
different points of view, but also to ascertain the basis for commonality in
contradictory propositions with a view to reconcile the same. Another example
of such as approach can be the two views about the soul i.e. some hold there is
only one soul and others hold there are innumerable souls. Nayavad reconciles
the apparent contradiction by holding that from the standpoint of separate
individual beings there are innumerable souls, but from the standpoint of pure
omniscient quality all souls are alike and, therefore, one. Since standpoints
are also known as "Apeksha", Nayaved is called Apekshavad, yet
another name for Anekantvada which can be loosely translated as Relativism.

We close this discussion of Nayavad with the following shloka of
Acharya Yashovijaya which gives succinctly the purpose and scope of Naya to
embrace different schools of thought :

Rajusutra Naya includes the Buddhist point of view. Vedanta and Sankhya
are covered by Sangrah Naya, the Yoga Vaisheshika are embraced by Naigam Naya
and Shabda Naya covers the Shabda Brahmvadi. Thus the Jain approach is apparent
that Nayavad embraces all philosophies.

In any case, the divisions are subdivisions of Nayas in not sacrosanct
as difference is apparent in the approach of different thinkers and at
different times-with development of thought, which cannot be static. As stated
earlier there can be unlimited Naya as the aspects from which a thing can be
viewed are unlimited. Further, all the Naya are dissolved and disappear with
the appearance of omniscience or Keval Gyan, as the stars disappear with the
appearance of the sun.

Doctrine of Seven fold predicates - Syadvad-Saptbhangi

Another offshoot of Anekantwadi or non-one-sided approach of Jain
philosophy is the Doctrine of seven-fold predication called Saptabhanghi and
Syadvad (doctrine of Maybe). It is also considered an important and unique
contribution of the Jains to the philosophic methodology and like anekantavad
has been subject of favourable comment as also of criticism.

As has been stated above reality has manifold aspects, which, for
obvious reason of limitation of speech, cannot be described fully and
simultaneously. Any statement is therefore likely to contravene or contradict
the principle of Anekantvad and therefore, can become false unless the speech
is properly qualified, at the same time embracing all points of view. To ensure
such qualification the particle `Syat'' is used with each of the statements or
predications which are seven in number. As such it is called the Doctrine of
Sevenfold Predicates (Sapt-Bhangi) and Syadvad. Before taking up the
discussions of this doctrine, it may be mentioned that while Anekantavad relies
on Nayavad-doctrine of standpoints in the sphere of thought; in the field of
speech, it depends upon Sapthbhangi and Syadvad. However, both the doctrines
are manifestations of the non-one-sided or Anekanta doctrine and have been
called its two wings. At the same time they are closely inter-related as the
former (naya) find expression in the later (Saptbhangi and Syadvad) and the
latter has close reference to the former.

What is Saptabhangi or doctrine of Sevenfold Predication ?

It is well known that according to different systems of logic,
dialectic propositions of philosophic importance are subjected to different
formulations to ascertain the correct actual position. This is done by raising
a group of questions and answering them. These are five fold formula of Sanjay
and fourfold alternatives of Buddhist. The Ajivakas declared that every thing
is of triple character viz. (i) existent or "Is" (ii) Non-existent or
"Is not" and existent as well as non-existent or "Is" as
well as "Is not" Similar mention of reference to three predicates is
said to exist in Bhagwati Sutra of the Jains, which later developed into
sevenfold predications. These are not clearly mentioned in Tatvarth Sutra but
are mentioned in Panchasti Kaya by Kundhkundacharya.

These seven predicates are :

A substance

1.Asti
= Is-exists,

2.Nasti
= Is not-does not exist.

3.Asti-Nasti
= Is and Is not-exists and does not exist.

4.Avaktavya
= In-expressible - Is in-expressible.

5.Asti-Avaktavya
= Is and is In-expressible-exists and is inexpressible.

6.Nasti-Avaktavya
= Is not and is in-expressible-does not exist and is in-expressible.

7.Asti-Nasti-Avakavya
= Is, Is not and is Inexpressible-Exists, does not exist and is in-expressible.

To make this difficult subject and rather fine discussion easily
understandable to common reader, an example of sevenfold or seven types of
reactions may be quoted from every day mundane situations (which was given to
the author by well known scholar Pt. Shobhachandji Bharill) Suppose a man is
sick, an enquiry about his health may bring, as is every day experience, the
following responses :

Respond about the patient's Condition

(i)

The patients is well

Theek hai (Is)

(ii)

The patients is not well

Theek nahi hai (Is not)

(iii)

The patients is well as well as not
well

Theek hai bhi aur nahi hai (Is and Is
not)

(iv)

The patient's condition is inexpressible
as nothing can be said definitely

Kuch kah nahi sakta (is inexpressible)

(v)

The patient is well but nothing can be
said or is inexpressible

Theek hai, kuch kah nahi sakta (Is and
is inexpressible)

(vi)

The patient is unwell but nothing can be
said or is inexpressible

Theek nahi hai, per kah nahi sakta (is
not and is inexpressible)

(vii)

The patient is well,as well as unwell at
the same time inexpressible as nothing can be said

Theek hai, nahi bhi or kah nahi sakta
(Is and Is not and is inexpressible)

However, all the seven predicates are preceded by the particle
"SYAT" to make these non-onesided or adhere to Anekantavad or Nayavad
(doctrine of standpoint). As such it is also known as Syadvad or Doctrine of
Conditional Yes as explained below.

Syadvada -

The word Syat in ordinary sanskrit is used to denote
"perhaps" or "May be" that is why syadvad is loosely called
Doctrine of `may be'. This interpretation however, introduces an element of
uncertainty or doubt which is in no way the intention behind Anekantvada.
Others interpret is as somehow or sometimes-Kadachit implying Syadvada as
expressing probability which is also not quite fully justified.

In the Jain usage SYAT means a "Conditional Yes" or a
conditional approval. It is like saying "In a certain sense-yes". As
such it converts a categorical statement into a conditional one-at the same
time positive and free from doubt. Instead of saying "A" is
"B" it will be said that "Syat A is B" i.e. Yes in a
certain sense A is B or Yes if xxxx then A is B.

Thus applying the particle Syat to the seven fold predication mentioned
above the following will be the true and complete statement of Saptabhangi
position :-

1.Syat-Asti-Yes-
In a certain sense it is or it exists

2.Syat-Nasti-Yes-
In a certain sense it is not or it does not exist.

3.Syat-Asti-Nasti-Yes-
In a certain sense it is and it is not or it exists and does not exist.

4.Syati
Avaktaya-Yes- In a certain sense it is inexpressible

5.Syat
Asti-Avktavya-Yes- In certain sense it is and it is inexpressible or both it
exists and is inexpressible.

6.Syat
Nasti-Avktavya-Yes- In a certain sense it is not and it is in expressible i.e.
both does not exist and is inexpressible.

7.Syat
Asti Nasti Avktavya-Yes- In a certain sense it is, it is not and is
inexpressible i.e. it exists, it does not exist and it is inexpressible.

The word Syat used in all the seven predications makes the formulation
unique in as much as it makes the statement adhere to
non-one-sidedness-Anekantvada by discarding dogmatism and intolerance and
introducing an element of open-mindedness. It concedes the opponent's thesis in
order to blunt the sharpness of his attack and disagreement, and at the same
time, it is calculated to pursued the apponent to see another point of view.
Thus the Jaina use of Syat has both-it has a disarming effect and contains
(implicitly) a persuasive force.

The philosophy and principles underlying Anekantavada, Nayavada and
Syadvada have been studied threadbare both by its critics and adherents alike;
of whom there has been no shortage over the past fifteen-twenty centuries.
Shankaracharya found these theories full of contradiction (Virodh) and doubt
(Samsaya). Others found in them inter-mixture (Samkara), cross breeding
(Vyatikara), lack of comprehension etc. All such problems have been resolved
and the allegations against the doctrine of non-one-sidedness have been ably
countered, thus establishing the validity of these theories, by Jain
philosophers and thinkers including Samantbhadra, Vidyanand, Akalaka,
Haribhandra, Hemchandra, Yashovijaya, and many others. Any student desirous of
advanced study of this subject can and may seek light from these great masters.
Lately, modern mathematicians and statisticians like Prof. Mahalanobis have
studied the subject in the light of scientific and mathematical advances made
and have published papers which deserve perusal and study. Similarly the
eminent scientist (Physicist) Dr. D.S. Kothari has shown that the propositions
enunciated in the theories of Saptabhangi and Syadvad are amply vindicated by
the latest developments in modern physics. Such monographs are valuable
contributions to the discussions of Syadvada, though not easily intelligible to
a layman-like the author-without proper guidance. Therefore the following
monographs are reproduced in the appendices so that these become easily
available for scholarly studies and further deliberations :

App. C- Modern Physics and Syadvada By Dr. D.S. Kothari.

App. D- The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to
Probability By Dr. P.C. Mahalanobis.

App. E- The Syadvada System of Predication By Dr. J.B.S.
Haldane.

App. F- Anekanta By Dr. Nathmal Tatia.

This brief discussion of the complex theories of Non-one-sidedness,
standpoints and Syadvad can be closed with concluding portion of Prof.
Matilal's lectures which is reproduced below :

"To sum up, the Anekantavada is thus a philosophy of
synthesis and reconciliation since it tries to establish a rapprochement
between seemingly disagreeing philosophical schools. Jaina philosophers contend
that no philosophic proposition can be true if it is only unconditionally
asserted. They say that the lessons to be drawn from age old disputes and
controversies regarding philosophic or metaphysical propositions is the
following. Each school asserts its thesis and claims it to be true. Thus a
philosopher does not really understand the point that is being made by the
opposite side. Rival schools only encourage dogmatism and intoleration in
philosophy. This, according to the Jains, is the evil of "ekanta" or
one-sided philosophies. Even the conflicting propositions of rival schools may
be in order, provided they are asserted with proper qualifications or
conditionalization. This is what exactly the "Anekanta" doctrine
teaches. Add a "Syat" particle to your philosophic proposition and
you have the truth.

Non-violence i.e. abstention from killing or taking the life of
others, was the dominate trend in the whole "Sramana" movement is
India, particularly in Buddhism and Jainism. I think the Jains carried the
principle of Non-violence to the intellectual level, and thus propounded their
"Anekant" doctrine. Thus the hallmark of the Anekanta doctrine was
toleration. The principle embodied in the respect for the life of others, was
transformed by Jain philosophers at the intellectual level into respect for the
views of others. This is, I think, an unique attempt to harmonize the persistent
discord in the field of philosophy".

Freedom of Will - The Five Samvay

Is man free ? Is he a master of his fate ? Is he free to act the way he
likes and blaze his own trail? In short has man got freedom of will ? Or is he
a slave-slave of destiny, nature, time or any other force by whatever name it
may be called ? Such questions have been haunting all thinking men from times
immemorial. Even today the issue remains unresolved-whether destiny is supreme
or man's efforts have power to change the destiny. Expressed in simple terms
this endless but interesting controversy is between Niyati and
Purusharth-between Taqdeer and Tadbeer.

The reasons for this controversy are not far to seek. Two men sow,
water and tend their crops in identical circumstances and manner-one reaps the
golden grain, the other loses even the chaff. Two persons born as twins with
same care from the same mother and training from the same father meet different
fates-one becomes a successful policeman and another a criminal destined for
the gallows.

No wonder man abjectly surrendered all his prowess and
power-nay-himself-completely before an un-known force. Call it Ishwer or Allah
or God. Indeed such an abdication-abject surrender was embellished as
Bhakti-devotion-as one of the means of man's salvation from misery, whereby,
even a confirmed sinner like Ajamil could be resurrected, simply by uttering
the name of the Lord.

Such a surrender, however, does not appeal to some brave souls-more
strongly inclined towards knowledge-Gyan and Action-Karma. Such thinkers have
been analysing the causes leading to the failure and success of the exercise of
man's free will. Indeed it was strange that inspite of complete and undivided
exertion success deluded such efforts. It was realised that there are a number
of other factors apart from human exertion-called Pursharth- which tend to
matter in the success or failure of the efforts.

These are described by various names in different schools of thought;
but in Jain thinking they are the five factors called (i) Kaal (time) (ii)
Swabhav (nature or disposition) (iii) Purakrit (past karma) (iv) Niyati
(destiny) and (v) Pursharth (human exertion). These are known as the five
Samvay.

Emphasis of varying degree has been laid on each of these by different
advocates and different schools from times immemorial. Thus we can trace
discussions on these recorded in Sutrakritang- one of the oldest canons of
Jainism which is supposed to contain the thoughts, if not words, of Lord
Mahaveer himself, dating back to era before Christ. Shloka 30 of Sutrakritang
declares a prevalent notion :

Read with reference to context it means that "some hold that
whatever pain and pleasure individuals beget are not the results of their own
acts or volition nor due to others-but it is due to destiny".

In the next shloka 31 this belief is dispelled :

That is "those who brag thus are fools declaring themselves as
learned; because they do not know that all pleasures or pains (or whatever
happens) are not only due to destiny but they are due to destiny and also due
to factors other than destiny".

A brief description of each one of the five Samvaya can now be
attempted in the subsequent paras.

Kaal or Time-

Time or Kaal is infinite, beginningless and
endless. It pervades the whole of the universe. It contributes towards the
birth and death, stability and change, growth and decay- every phenomena in the
universe. The believers in supremacy of Time as the sole factor responsible for
pleasure and pain or success and failure of all endeavour are known as Kaalvadies.
They find mention in Mahabharat like Asur Raj Bali who held that:

In simpler terms Kaalvadies held that it is
only when appropriate time comes the seeds will grow and trees will bear fruits
inspite of all efforts made; thus holding supremacy of Time.

No, wonder, therefore, that Kaal or Time was
defined as the supreme God of destruction as Mahakaal, which could not only
annihilate everything but also hold everyone accountable after death in the
form of Yamraj and his subordinates.

Swabhava or nature or disposition
-

It was advocated by some that it is the
inherent nature or disposition of the thing or its swabhav which produces the
results. Just as only clay can be moulded into a pot and not cotton, which can
produce cloth, all efforts aimed otherwise shall be in vain.

This school of thought known as Swabhavvadi
claimed :

It follows that according to swabhavvadis
like Prahlad (described in Mahabharat -Shanti Parva) only such of the seeds
will grow which have the nature of fertility - infertile or dead seeds will not
grow irrespective of watering, manuring etc. It was, therefore, held that
disposition or swabhav was the determining factor in the success or failure or
pain and pleasure in the world.

Niyati or Destiny -

Believers in destiny, pre-destination or
Niyativadies have been quite common in the East or the West in the past and the
present. They believe that everything is pre-destined and whatever has to
happen-good or bad - will happen. Contrarily whatever is not pre-destined to
happen will never happen All efforts to undo or oppose pre-destination will be
in vain.

One of the greatest exponents of Niyati was
Goshalak (and his Ajeevaka) who was a contemporary of Lord Mahaveer and who
held that whatever has to happen in whatever form and method has to happen like
that, no body can stop the destiny :

Further we find praise of Destiny or Niyati
in a number of Sanskrit works; an example from Yogvashista is given below :

That is “Destiny always dispassionately and
beautifully executes the dance drama of wordly affairs.

Purakrit or Past Karmas -

In the ordinary sense every act through mind,
word or deed (mental, verbal or physical ) is known as Kriya or Karma or
action. In Jain thought all the actions get recorded on the soul in the form of
karman varganas, pudgals or waves due to the vibrations of the soul on account
of the acts. If the acts are also accompanied by passions like anger, pride,
deceipt and greed, the attachment or bondage of soul is stronger. All such
action have their reaction which are the karma fruits or Karmanphal.

It is generally believed that the past Karma
were the reasons for the success or failure of one's efforts, and whatever
pleasure or pain was derived; was due to past Karma.

Scriptures are full of precepts and examples
how past Karma-Purkarit determine the future course of the beings.

(Karma are the roots of birth and death. Birth and death are the
roots of misery.)

(These is no escape (except facing the results) from past Karma).

The above references are from Jain Agam-
Uttaradhyayan. However, most of the other schools of thought like Sankhya,
Nyaya, Meemansa, Vedanta and Budddha have accepted the importance of Karma in
the lives of all living beings. Looking for the cause of manifestation of life
in different forms, its variations in capacity, behaviour, pleasure and pain,
the Indian thinkers universally concluded that these were due to the past
Karmas (purakrita) of the individual soul which follow it in successive lives
just as a calf follows the mother.

Pursharth or Efforts -

As the name implies those who believe in
Pursharth or efforts as the determining factor in world affairs hold that
whatever pain or pleasure, success or failure - exist in the world is the
result of one's efforts, there being no outside agency interfering in it. In
other words such schools accept complete freedom of will as its base, and
maintain that it is no use putting the blame on other factors like time, nature
etc., the main reason being intelligent or un-intelligent effort leading to
success or failure respectively. We shall come back to Pursharth again in
subsequent paragraphs.

Apart from these five Samvay discussed above there are other factors
found in different philosophies like Brahamvad, which treats God, the Supreme
Being, solely responsible for everything. On the other extreme is Bhootwad
which takes a purely materialistic view of he world; and
"accidentalism" akasmatvad holding that everything in the world is
accidental or by chance. We find such numerous schools described in
Sutrakritang mentioned earlier.

What is the Jain view on this subject ? It is well-known that the
bedrock of Jain Philosophy is theory of Non-absolutism or Anekantwad whereby
different viewpoints are considered as valid in judging every phenomena. True
to this approach Jain thinkers have considered that all the five Samvay jointly
are responsible for the world phenomena. All these together contribute to the
success and failure, or pain or pleasure. None of these five viz.;, time,
disposition fate, past karmas, and exertion are individually effective. It is
only when all the five come into play that - to take an example - crop shall
grow in the field. Time for seeding, watering, cutting etc. should be
appropriate. There should be timely rain and sunshine. The seeds and soil and
water should be such that they have the capability to germinate, grow and
ripen. If seeds or soil are infertile there shall be no crop, inspite of all
watering and tending. Again it should be destined that there will be crop.
Similarly past karma of the farmer should entitle him to reap a satisfactory
harvest. Lastlyproper exertion of
efforts should be put in for tilling the soil, manuring, seeding, watering,
deweeding, cutting, winnowing and so on.

Jain thinkers have laid great emphasis on this composite or
non-absolutist -anekantwadiview -as
much as that Acharya Siddhsen Diwakar has declared in his monumental work
"Sanmati Tarka" :

This is "to hold time, disposition, fate, past karma and exertion
as valid severally or individually is false faith (mithyatva). To hold them
jointly or relatively valid is right faith (samyakatva)."

However, exertion or Pursharth has been given the prime place, amongst
the five samvya. It is the first amongst the five equals. The reasons are not
far to seek.

Firstly, exertion is the only active agent. While time, fate, etc. are
non-living and, therefore, inactive and dormant, exertion is the result of
active efforts of the living soul, and therefore, full of life. Again exertion
attracts responsibility. The soul which exerts is responsible for the result of
its efforts. There is no such responsibilityattached to time, fate, and others.

Further at least partly, if not fully, proper exertion can even change
the course of time etc. Thus it is scientifically possible to grow crops out of
season and the course of time can be modified. Similarly science can improve
infertile soil, and purakrit is nothing but exertion or Purshart done in the
past. Here also we find that effect of some type of Karma e.g. Niddhat Karma
can be changed by proper exertion e.g. tapasya. Similarly, it should be
possible to adjust the course of fate by proper exertion.

This brings us to the subject under discussion and we find that though
the living being is partly a free agent in as much as it is free to exert or do
Purshart, it is also a slave of or bound by time, fate, disposition etc.
However, to the extent that exertion or Purshart is the active and responsible
agent, it is free to act and, therefore, has complete freedom of will.
Following this one should do Purshart without bothering about the result that
may be the outcome of play of the five samvay. No wonder same message is given
in the book of books Bhagwad Geeta "Karmanye-Vadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu
Kadachan." If the exertion is right exertion, known as Samyog Charitra in
Jain terminology, guided and inspired by Samyag Darshan and Samyag Gyan, there
is no reason why the result should be different from the desired one.

Incidentally Vedanta also gives the same answer to the question of
freedom of will of the individual. It clarifies that as long as the individual
is under the control of Avidya, he has no freedom of will, but as soon as he is
able to throw away the yoke of Avidya he is a completely free agent, the other
factors dance to his tune. However, to get rid of Avidya one has to make
efforts or Purusharth, which makes it the prime factor or the prime mover to
use a scientific term. Taking another example, if life is a game of cards, the
way cards are distributed is determined by Destiny, Time Swabhava etc. but it
is Purusharth which decided how the cards are played. It is well known that
much depends on the way cards are played, the best hand being thrown away by
poor play and an ordinary hand scores if the play is well managed. This again
establishes the primacy of Purusharth.

To summarise, it is stated that amongst the five factors which are
equally important in the affairs of men (and all living beings) namely Time,
Disposition, Past karma, Destiny and exercise of free will, the one known as
Purusharth is the first among the five equals. This leads to an optimistic
approach and gives confidence to the beings that they can mould their present
and future in a manner as they will. This is true about matters temporal as
well as spiritual. Indeed, many men have progressed on the spiritual path by
the exercise of their will in the right manner. In matters temporal the
progress made by men in scientific sphere is for every one to see.

Finally, it will be appropriate to conclude this article with
quotations from the Geeta and sacred texts of Jainism and Buddhism which
identically lay emphasis on Purusharth or Freedom of will and exhort human
beings on the path of progress through efforts of their own i.e. Purusharth :

Geeta (6 : 5) says :

The soul should attain one's own progress, and soul should not
digress by grief-because the soul is his own friend and his own enemy,

Buddhist scriptures prescribe :

The soul is the ruler of the soul, none except the soul can
help. Just as a merchant regulates his horse, one should regulate his soul.

Jain agam (Uttaradhyayan) says similarly :

Soul is the creator and destroyer of happiness and misery. Soul
is the friend and the enemy (ifit is)
on the wrong path or the right path.

Appendix A: Preface to German Edition of Book of The Doctrine
of Karma in Jain Philosophy,by Dr.
H.V. Glasenapp

The doctrine of Karman is the central dogma of the Indian religions. It
means : every action, every word, every thought produces, besides its visible,
an invisible, transcendental effect- the Karman : every action produces, if one
may so express it, certain potential energies which under given conditions, are
changing themselves into actual energies, forces which, either as reward or
punishment, enter sooner or later into appearance. As in the case of a bond
which, although the amount borrowed may long ago have been spent, continues to
exist and only loses its validity on the repayment of the capital sum, so also
the invisible effect of an action remains in existence long after the visible
one has disappeared. This effect does not confine itself to the present life,
but continues beyond it; it destines qualitatively and quantitatively the state
after death. Actions performed during the present existence are the causes of
the future existence, and the present life is, in its condition and duration,
the result of the actions of the preceding one. Thus the natural difference
between individuals finds an explanation which is so plausible that inversely
it is adduced as a proof of the truth of the Karman theory. The Karman doctrine
involves the idea of an eternal metempsychosis; for, as in each new existence
actions which must be expiated in a future life are performed anew, so the
migration of souls continues without end; but, as, on the other hand, every
existence presupposes the actions of a preceding one, so likewise it is without
beginning. Now, however, the idea of the eternity of the samsara, as soon as
life was contemplated pessimistically, necessarily led to the endeavour to
bring the painful reincarnation to an end and eradicate the power of the
Karman. To this longing after salvation from the painful cycle of rebirths a
great number of religious and philosophical systems owe their origin, systems
which, widely as they may deviate from one another in detail, are all in
agreement in belief in the operating power of fault and of merit, in acceptance
of the theory of the migration of souls, and in striving after a nirvana.

When and where the Karman doctrine has had its origin in India we do
not know; only it is sure that it existed at least a thousand years before the
beginning of the Christian Era, and has since become the basis and centre of
religious thought. Although the various sects and schools are to some extent in
accord with one another in their estimation of the efficacy of the Karman,
there exist great differences between them regarding its philosophical
explanation. There may be distinguished a whole scale of views, from the most
extreme realism, which regards the Karman as a complexity of material particles
infecting the sinful souls, to the most extreme idealism, according to which it
is a species of newly produced invisible force, after all, in its highest
meaning only unreal, because the entire world of the senses is an empty
illusion, a dream, a Fata Morgana.

The conception first mentioned, the most realistic of all that have had
their origin in India, is that of the Jains, of that Indian religious community
which has existed from pre-Buddhistic times down to the present day. Their
fundamental idea is, that the soul, pure in itself, is polluted through its
actions and, in order to regain its natural state, must be free from its
stain-an idea which is also found in other religions, but which, however, while
it has remained with them only an allegorical expression, has been adopted by
the Jains in the real sense of the word, and has been worked up into an
original system, which even now is the foundation of the belief of one-and-a-half
million people.

The Karman theory of the Jains as still taught today has been fully
dealt with in a great number of works, Of these up till now, as far as I know,
the following have been published : (1) the Karmagranthas; (2) the
Pancasamgraha; and (3) the Karmaprakrti.

1.The
Karmagranthas are six books, of different dimensions, which treat of the most
important points of the Karman doctrine. The text, composed in Prakrit-Gathas,
and the Sanskrit Commentary on books I.-V., have been written by Devendrasuri
(died Samvat 1327 in Malava). There also exists a Commentary on the Gathas,
Balavabodhas written in Gujarati by Maticandra, Yasahsoma and his pupil
Jayasoma, which is printed in the collection Prakaranaratnakara (Bombay, Samvat
1937) Vol. IV, pp. 305 et seq. The last, the sixth Karmagrantha, consists of
some 70 Gathas, which have been taken from Drstivada by Candramahattara. The
most important commentary appears to be that by Malayagiri (according to
Kielhorn in the 12th century A.D.), which in the edition employed is added to
the text; here the number of the Gathas is 75. Peterson, Report 1883, Appendix
I. p. 27, mentions a manuscript, with a commentary by Devendrasuri, which
comprises 77 Gathas : "Candramahattaracaryakrtagatha 70 tatra praksiptagathakarta
Devendracaryah". In the Fourth Report (1886-1892) p. 57, he mentions
another manuscript which contains 89 Gathas, and makes the following comment :
"At the end of the Saptatika Devendra states that tract is the work of
Candramahattara to which he has himself added 19 gathas, bringing the total
number up to 89". According to that, then, the original text must have
contained 70 Gathas, and the one used by Malayagiri was already enlarged by
additions. In the Prakaranaratnakara IV, pp. 773 et seq the sixth Karmagrantha
is also furnished with a commentary. The number of the Gathas therein has been
increased by additions to 93. The variation in the number of the verses shows
that this book has been the object of extensive activity on the part of commentators
so that it is to be supposed that divergence between the views of different
teachers has taken in it particularly acute forms. To me the commentary of
Malayagiri has alone been accessible, for which reason deviations from the
doctrine, that may have been expounded in his commentary by Devendra, might
have been unavoidable. The difference between the views of the two masters
cannot, however, have been of far-reaching consequence, because the variations
existing between the first five Karmagranthas, explained by Devendra, and the
sixth, commented upon by Malayagiri, are altogether of insignificant
importance.

2.The
Pancasamgraha contains a summary of the entire Karman doctrine. It consists of
a great number of Prakrit-Gathas, which emanate from Candrarsi
(Candramahattara) i.e., from the author of the Gathas of the sixth
Karmagrantha. Its name, Pancasamgrah "Epitome of Five Things", the
book owes either to the circumstance that it has been compiled from five older
books : Sataka, Saptatika, Kasayaprabhrta, Satkarma and Prakrti (p.3) or to the
five dvaras, of which it treats, namely yogopayogamargana, bandhakah,
baddhavyam; bandhahetavah, and bandhavidhayah (p.5). It was commented upon by
Malayagiri.

3.The
Karmaprakrti gives, in 475 Gathas, the detailed account of a portion of the
Karman doctrine. It was compiled by Sivasarmasuri, who indicates as his source
the chapter of the Agrayaniyapurva of the Drstivada, called
"Karmaprakrti". The K.P. has often been commented upon. The most
celebrated commentary is the Tika by Malayagiri; besides, that, there exists a
Vrtti by Yasovijaya; who lived in the 17th century, an anonymous Curni and a
Tippana by Nemicandra.

The relations of the Karman works to one another and to other books of
Jain literature are still in need of thorough examination, which, it must be
admitted, can only be made possible when other works of description will yet
have been published That Devendra was acquainted with the Karmaprakrti and the
Pancasamgraha is seen from Kg. II, 144 a: "Devendrasurina likhitam
karmaprakrti-pancasamgraha-brhacchataka-disastrebhyah". Concerning his
dependence on the commentaries of Malayagiri nothing for the moment can be
said: there are, however, in many different places literal reminiscences of the
writing of the latter; but, as both have made use of still older authors, it
cannot be decided to what extent he leans upon him, or how far both go back to
a common source.

Candramahatara and Sivasarman indicate as their source the twelfth
Anga, the Drstivada, an indication which is also found in other parts of the
Jain literature. As the Purvas are said to have been, partially at least, in
existence up till the year 1000 after Vira., the Karman doctrine must have
been, at the latest, completely developed at that time. The question now
arises, whether this very complicated doctrine had already existed before that
time or not i.e., whether it is the product of a comparatively recent
speculation, or had been already in its essential points contained in the
sacred writings. A final judgment regarding this can only be arrived at through
a comparison of the ideas developed in the Karman works with those of the
entire canon. I have not made such an examination. Nevertheless, as far as I
could see, the most important Karman doctrines are contained actually in the
Siddanta, of which any one can easily convince himself, if he but superficially
consults the Sthananga-Sutra, Bhagavati-Sutra, Aupapatika-Sutra and
Uttaradhyayana-Sutra. Many of the passages concerning Karman appearing in these
works contain only generalities; many, however, give so many details that
through them we may arrive at the result that already at the time of the canon
the Karman was developed in a high degree. That not only the principle points
but many details of the Karmna theory are contained in the Angas and Upangas,
is proved by the numerous passages from the sacred writings which are quoted by
the commentators and which often refer to quite special things.

Further, the fact that the Karman writings go beyond that which has
been laid down in the canon, but do not contradict it, follows already from the
reason that they have not invoked upon themselves the reproach of heterodoxy.
For, with a religious community that zealously guards the purity of their
doctrine, as do the Jains, any important deviation would not have remained
unreproved. As with the canon, so also all Karman works are in accord in all
things of prime importance; in some details, however, where in the sacred
writing does not make any distinct declaration and leaves free rein to
speculation, they differ from one another to the extent that in some details
two or more views are exposed. There are two schools in particular who are
opposing one another on many by-issues : the Agamikas and the Karmagranthikas.
The former, the chief exponent of whom is Malayagiri, derive their ideas from a
tradition which is dependent upon the Purvas. The Karmagranthikas and their
spokesman Devendrasuri, however, lean on the authority of older works on the
Karman, portions of which are even to-day in existence in Jain monastic
libraries, but about which, nevertheless, nothing distinct is as yet known. For
this attempt at a first complete, although not exhaustive, account of the
Karman doctrine, works of the two schools have been used. This could be done
without hesitation, because the differences between the two schools are quite
unimportant in regard to the system as a whole, and in a preponderating
majority area of an altogether trifling nature; in their proper place there will
be pointed out the most conspicuous of these differences.

The leading works, on which this account is based are the six
Karmagranthas, in addition to which the two other work have been consulted for
comparison and for supplementary material; the ideas reproduced by us are
therefore, within certain limitations, practically in their entirety those of
Devendrasuri. The Karmagranthas recommended themselves before all other
writings in so far as they demonstrate the Karman doctrine in the clearest
manner, and because of their most methodical arrangement. For similar reasons
they appear to be those most highly estimated by the present-day Jains as is
proved by their frequent occurrence in manuscripts and in translations into the
vernacular languages.

In order to afford the uninitiated an insight also into the essential
principles and arrangement of the Karmagranthas, I append the following
observations relating to them, commencing with a

1. Praise, list of contents (55a); 2. explanation of the 14 gunasthanas
(56a); 3-12. representation of the different prakrtis which are possible in
bandha in the gunasthanas. (63a); 13-23, the same in udaya (69a); 24. the same
in udirana (74a); 25-34. the same in satta (75a); 34. colophon (78b).

BANDHASVAMITVA (BANDHASAMITTA)

1. Praise, list of contents (80a); 2-3. summary of prakrtis which are
not bound (81a); 4-24. what prakrtis are bound in the 14 marganasthanas (81b);
24. colophon (91a).

Pradesa-bandha : 75-77. grahana and agrahana-varganas (68b), 78-79.
what is the constitution of the matter which the jiva assimilates and how is
the assimilation done ? (72a); 79-81. the distribution of matter between the
prakrtis (74a); 82-83. the gunasrenis (79b); 84. antarala of the gunasthanas
(81b); 85-88 explanation of palyopama and pudgalaparavarta (83a); 89-92. who
has maximum-pradesa-bandha of the different prakrtis ? (89a); 93. who has
minimum pradesa-bandha ? (93b); 94. utkrsta-, anutkrsta-, jaghanya-,
ajaghanya-bandha and sadi, anadi-, dhruva-, adhruva bandha (95a); 95-97.
yoga-and adhyavasaya-sthanas (98b).

The task of the Karmagranthas is to expose completely a dogma but not
to prove it. That is why we find in them a full enumeration of the different
kinds of the karman, of the states of the soul, the degrees of their
development, etc., but we do not hear why any of this is thus and not
otherwise. I am aware of one passage only wherein the author deliberately
raises the question concerning the cause. It is contained in Kg. II; 75a;
herein the author raises an objection as to how it is possible that the
particle of matter seized in a moment by the soul is capable of transforming
itself into the number of particles necessary for the formation of the various
species of the Karman, whereupon he replies that it is through the mysterious
power of the soul, of which we may not make to ourselves any idea, and through
the peculiar quality of the matter itself. It may be observed, he argues, that
matter on which no spiritual force is working, is changing into clouds and
rainbows; why, then, could not matter with which a jiva is in connection be
changed into different kinds of karman ? All further discussion is cut off by
an energetic "alam vistarena". The disregard of rational
argumentation here shown is justified in so far Jainism does not pretend to
have attained its doctrines by human rational means. It is not through the
limited comprehension of an average man that Jainism arrives at its view-point
of the world, but by revelation or, better, by that which an omniscient man, a
kevalin, has communicated. Everything that such a master, adorned with 18
characteristics, proclaims concerning world and life is accepted
un-conditionally as Truth that nothing can shake. All Jain scriptures,
therefore, only undertake to recapitulate the utterances of such a man, to
explain them, and, if necessary, to supplement them. This supplementing is done
by the restricted agency of the human understanding ; the interpreters are
consequently fully aware of their own inperfection, and point out, over and
over again, that they are liable to err, for the reason that the Truth is only
revealed to the omniscient ones, -nevertheless, this fact in no way deters them
from opposing people who arrive at other conclusions.

In working up the material I have been governed by the desire to be as
concise as possible. I have discarded all that is not in direct connection with
the subject, that is to say, all the discursive matter which is interwoven in
the text and the commentaries. Further, I have not taken into consideration all
the views of the different teachers excepting only opinion expressed in the
text itself. Although several things have been abbreviated or omitted. I hope
that nothing of importance has been lost to view. If in many instances and in
manifold regard the text provided too much for our necessities, on the other
hand, in many respects, it supplied too little. In order to present a general
view of the world of ideas connected with the karman doctrine, I felt myself
compelled to supplement the missing points by drawing upon other works, chiefly
the Tattvarthadhigam-asutra and the Lokaprakasa. This applies especially to the
introduction and to chapter V., VI.2, VII.1, which, although probably affording
scarcely anything new to the specialist in Jain philosophy, will not be
unacceptable to other readers.

Of the books published in European languages, two only have been of
prominent use to me. The first is the series of lectures on Karman Philosophy,
delivered by the late Mr. Virchand R. Gandhi in London, and which were
subsequently published from notes made by Mr. H. Warren. This excellent work
would undoubtedly have become an exhaustive manual had Gandhi not been
overtaken by death before its completion. Thus his work remains a torso, and
treats of a small part only of the karman system proper, namely the doctrine of
the karmaprakrtis and the first five gunasthanas; but, notwithstanding its
incomplete form, it has been of great value to me. The other work to which I
have referred is Professor H. Jacobi's German translation of the
Tattavarthadhigama-Sutra, the only book on Jain dogmatics hitherto translated
into a European language. The rendering of numerous termini technique is due to
it, and to it likewise I owe many observations contributing essentially to an
understanding of the subject.

I must reserve till the last my special expression of gratitude to my
revered teacher, the celebrated Jainadarsanadivakara, Her Geheimrat, Professor
Dr. Jacobi, who inspired me to undertake this work and who, by his advice and
encouragement, has aided me in its accomplishment.

Dr. Helmuth Von Glasenapp

Appendix B: Foreword By Prof. R. Zimmerman, to the Book
`Doctrine of Karman is Jain Philosophy'

The subject-matter of "Karman in Jain Philosophy" is of
supreme importance both to the adherent of Jain tenets and to the student of
religion. The orthodox Jain will find set forth here whatforms a central part of his belief, and what
more or less actuates his life according to the dogma he professes. And
whatever faith one may adhere to, it is necessary to give oneself an account of
it as far as possible. For, that cannot be called a religion fit for rational
Beings that does not stand the test of reason, or which even runs counter to
the laws of human understanding. True, every religion worth the name has to
face, and grapple with, problems that have been solved in a variety of ways by
the thinkers and teachers of mankind. In every religion which rises above the
primitive forms of worship questions may be found to which no answer may have
been given so far by the system, in part because the questions have not been
gone into, in part because the premises of the system are not such as would
lead to, or even allow, a consistent reply to every query. But there are-and
just in the highest forms of religion-How's and Why's to which no human
intellect will ever be able to giva a satisfactory, exhaustive reply. In such
cases it must suffice to show that these doctrines, though they are shrouded in
mystery, yet are not wantonly put forth, that they are not without cohesion
with the rest of the system, and that they lie still within the domain of sound
thinking. Such doctrines must even not be without direct or indirect support
either from logical deduction or from experience or from both. It is not
permissible that they should be mere statements for the sake of the system, and
without some proof or other. Such statements would be untenable, whether they
proceed from a delight in theoretical systematising, without an eye to facts, or
whether they are result of a fertile fancy's play.

The follower of Mahavira, then, has got here a golden opportunity of
seeing how far the doctrine of the founder and the recognised exponents of
Jainism satisfies the requirements laid down in the above prinicples. In other
words, the present exposition of the doctrine of Karman in the Jain Philosophy
will afford to the Jain of these days a welcome chance of gauging his religion
by the standard of principles recognised by the modern student of philosophy and
theology. And it must be a distinct delight to the thinkers among the ranks of
this belief to see how their creed, old and venerable to them, fits in with or
contradicts, as the case may be, twentieth century views. It is in particular
to this class of thinkers that the present book appeals, a class for which the
Jain community has been more remarkable than many another rival creed in India.
It is probably owing to their enthusiasm, conservatism and, at the same time,
adaptability, that Mahavira's doctrine has found followers so early and
unflinching, that it has lasted for more than 2000 years, and has outlived such
a formidable competitor as Buddhism at one time threatened to become.

But the book before us is of importance for every student of religion,
be he within or without the circle of Mahavira's adherents because it treats of
the Karman, a central, if not the fundamental, doctrine in most of the world's
religions. Apart from the emphasis with which Karman is taught in Jainism, the
Jain doctrine on this point is of uncommon interest, as it postulates such a
nature of Karman which would seem to represent an extreme, for, in no other
system, perhaps, has Karman been taught to be of such concrete, realistic,
physical nature as here. This should not be taken to imply that other systems
of philosophy and religion had not beliefs regarding Karman that seems at least
to approach the Jain version. The technical terms as well as the illustrations,
used in teaching and explaining Karman in Vedanta, for instance, appear to
suggest that the moral element in each action which is followed by reward or
punishment would produce a physical entity, to be consumed in enduring the pain
or enjoying the reward. But nowhere, if our sources and their knowledge are
comprehensive enough, has the physical nature of the Karman been asserted with
such stress as in Jainism. A moral fact, then good or bad, produce a
psycho-physical quality, a real not merely symbolical mark, a characteristic in
the most literal sense, affecting the soul in its physical nature. This point
of view once taken, it was not unnatural, that the analysis of the production,
nature and effect of the Karman should assume such an almost mathematical form
as it has done in the Karmagranthas and other authoritative writings, and bring
rather heterogeneous elements together under the common category Karman.
Anyone, however, who should find the Jain doctrine of Karman and its
psycho-physical analysis of the classical writers too minute and complicated,
is referred to Buddhist psychology. There he may readily convince himself that
either these writers have merely systematised for the system's sake, or have
seen a good deal more than we, for some reason or other, are able to see.

The second point that before others attracts attention is the question
about the age of the Karman theory. Though the doctrine has been developed with
a minuteness in detail, a care in classification, a definiteness in statement,
which would do credit to the most methodical modern system, yet here again the
question about its age remains, for the time being, an open one. At least one
thousand years before the Christian era the Karman tenet is said to have been
in vogue. This is of course supposed to be the lower limit, the higher one
possibly lying much further back in antiquity. But the fact is significant that
it cannot be shown where precisely and when a doctrine of such central position
as that of the Karman originated. That the fundamental idea of Karman is part
and parcel of the Jain canon may be as readily accepted as the assumption that
later writers have developed the theory in detail and expressed in technical
terms what the elders implicitly had taught and believed. But if neither
Jainism, nor Buddhism, nor Hinduism has got to show a definite date of origin
for a doctrine that with all of them is a pivot of their beliefs, might it not
be assumed that this doctrine of the Karman in its various shades is an
inheritance of old, a technical expression of the universally acknowledged law
of moral retribution ?

The third point that strikes the modern student of religion is the
great insight attached to authority. In this Jainism indeed does not stand
alone. The Vedic Rsi of yore, the Tathagata with the Buddhist, claimed and
enjoyed as undisputed an authority in deciding the most momentous problems as
the Jain Kevalin. But that they all were credited with such insight into things
beyond the senses and primitive thinking as would command unswerving faith, and
would cut short questions like Why ? and How ? : this is a document of the fact
that even atheistic religious systems, to say nothing of strict Theism, profess
to be a higher message, and claims to convey a preternatural, if not a
supernatural truth.

So much about the book before us and its contents. One more word about
the author. In the Preface to the English Edition (p.21) he makes mention of
"the difficulty which besets a European in penetrating into an intricate
Indian Philosophical system". It is true, in undertaking and accomplishing
such a task everything is against him, except the will to know and to get over
every obstacle. The Indian can hardly realise how a day's, perhaps a week's,
work may be lying behind the grasp of a term the understanding of which is a
matter of tradition to him. Considering what Dr. Von Glasenapp has achieved, it
may not be easy to say who is to be congratulated more, whether he who has
mastered so successfully the task before him, or the readers, the members of
the Jain community before all, who thus easily enter into the fruits of the
author's labour. The Encyclopaedia for Indo-Aryan Research (I. Band, I. Heft B,
Geschichte der Sanskrit-Philologie and Indischen Altertumskunde, von Ernst
Windisch, p. 354), acknowledges the worth of the present book which it calls
"an important new publication on Jainism" that "should make the
understanding of the Karman doctrine easier". Indeed it requires more than
an ordinary acumen to find out from an even string of Gathas the leading lines
of a whole system, to co-ordinate and subordinate them according to their
importance and consequence, and to marshal the details into their respective
quarters. It needs a will to conquer in order to enter upon tasks of this kind,
not unlike the entering of a forest in a dark continent, possibly untrodden by
human foot, bristling with technical terms, unexplained, yet full of settled
meaning, often enough not to be derived from etymology. The enthusiasm and love
of a research scholar is required for trying one's strength at such problems with
the likely, but by no means certain, prospect of pushing the limits of our
knowledge at least a little further back into the vast realm hitherto unknown
and unexplored. May the English edition of "The Doctrine of the Karman in
Jain Philosophy" meet with the same success in India, its spiritual home,
the German one has met with in a foreign land.

St. Xavier's CollegeR.
Zimmermann,

S.J.

Bombay

May 15, 1921

Appendix C: Modern Physics and Syadvada-Dr. D.S. Kothari

The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is
comprehensible. - A. Einstein (b. 14.3.1879, d. 18.4.1955).

The one certain thing is that a statement like "existence is
meaningless" is itself devoid of any meaning. - Niels Bohr (b. 7.10.1885.
d. 18.11.1962).

Complementarity principle in Syadvada

The principle of Complementarity which we owe principally to Niels Bohr
is perhaps the most significant and revolutionary concept of modern physics.
Philosophically, it should be noted, it is very close to the concept of
Syadvada. Bohr had great faith in the future role in human affairs of the
practical philosophy of complementarity. It can enable people to see that
seemingly irreconcilable points of view need not be contradictory. These, on
deeper understanding, may be found to be complementary and mutually
illuminating. The complementarity approach allows the possibility of
accommodating widely divergent human experiences into an under-lying harmony,
and bringing to light new social and ethical vistas for exploration and for
alleviation of human suffering. Bohr fervently hoped that one day
complementarity would be an integral part of everone's education and provide
guidance in the problems and challenges of life. For Bohr the complementarity
approach which accomplished one of the greatest revolutions in natural
philosophy was also of the utmost relevance for every aspect of man's life.

Modern Physics (relativity and quantum theory) provides as never
before, far-reaching examples of, and insight into, Syadvada. Also Syadvada
makes it much easier to grasp the complementarity principle in physics. Above
all Syadvada and so the complementarity approach is a guide for the pursuit of
truth and ahimsa in all their varied aspects.

H. Yukawa, the Japanese physicist who predicted the existence of the
mesons on the basis of the principle of complementarity, was asked whether
young physicists in Japan found the same great difficulty in comprehending the
idea of complementarity as physicists do in the West. He replied that Bohr's
complementarity always appeared to them as quite evident. "You see we in
Japan have not been corrupted by Aristotle (Aristotle's Logic)", he added.
How much more would it be true of India if Syadvada was a part of Indian
education but our formal education (till recently ?) has hardly any Indian
roots.

It is interesting to recall that Bohr as a student attended Hoffding
lectures on formal logic and on the history of philosophy. He liked Spinoza's
concept of the psychophysical parallelism, but later rejected it, as
parallelism is not a true expression of complementarity. He read Kierkegaard.
He was much impressed by Paul Muller's "Tale of Danish Student", a
delightful humorous story of Hegelian dialectics. A soul-searching research
scholar struggles desperately to unravel the intricacies of human thinking. How
can a thought arise in the mind ? "And before you think it, you must have
had an idea of it, otherwise how could it have occurred to you to think it ?
And so it goes on to infinity, and this infinity enclosed in an instant".
And while the scholar is trying to prove that thoughts cannot move, in that
very process the thoughts are rapidly moving. We are involved in an
inexplicable contradiction. (L. Rosenfeld, Physics Today, Oct, 1963.). All this
is so similar to the celebrated Zeno's paradox on the impossibility of motion
of objects.

Language and Reality

At this point a few words about ambiguities and contradictions inherent
in ordinary language may be in order. Bohr's first and continuing preoccupation
with philosophical problems related to the use of language for unambiguously
describing our experiences. A fundamental difficulty in this regard arises from
the inescapable fact that man is both actor and spectator in the universe, an
idea that was Bohr's favourite reflection. Thus, when I am `seeing' a thing, I
am also `acting' : my choice to see the particular thing is an `act', on my
part. We often use the same word to describe a state of our consciousness and of
the associated, accompanying behaviour of the body. How to avoid the ambiguity
? Bohr drew attention to the beautiful analogy of the concepts of multiform
function and Riemann surface. The different values of a multiform function and
distributed on different Riemann planes of a Riemann surface. Similarly we may
say that the different meanings of the same word belong to different `planes of
objectivity'. "The use of words in everyday life must be subject to the
condition that they be kept within the same plane of objectivity, and as soon
as we deal with words referring to our own thinking, we are exposed to the
danger of gliding on to another plane. In mathematics, that highly
sophisticated language, we are guarded against this danger by the essential
rule never to refer to ourselves. But just as the gist or Riemann's conception
lies in regarding all the branches of a multiform function as one single
function, it is an essential feature of ordinary language that there is one
word only for the different aspects of a given form of psychical activity. We
cannot hope, therefore, to avoid such deep rooted ambiguities by creating `new
concepts'. We must rather recognise the mutual relationships of the planes of
objectivity as primitive, irreducible ones, and try to remain keenly aware of
them" (Rosenfeld p-49).

Bohr often used to tell how the ancient Indian thinkers had emphasized
the futility of our ever understanding the "meaning of existence".
And he would add that the one certain thing is that a statement like "existence
is meaningless" is itself devoid of any meaning.

In his Gifford Lectures (1955-56) on Physics and Philosophy Heisenberg
has discussed at some length the problem of language and reality in modern
physics. He emphasised that the concepts of natural or ordinary language
"are formed by the immediate connection with reality; they represent
reality. It is true that they are not very well defined and may therefore also
undergo changes in the course of the centuries, just as reality itself did, but
they never lose the immediate connection with reality" (p.,171). On the
other hand because the concepts of science are for the precisely defined,
idealised, their connection with reality is in general, only in a limited
domain of nature. Heisenberg says : "Keeping in mind the intrinsic
stability of the concepts of natural language in the process of scientific
development, one sees that after the experience of modern physics-our attitude
toward concepts like mind or the human soul or life or God will be different from
that of the nineteenth century. Because these concepts belong to the natural
language and have therefore immediate connection with reality. It is true that
we will also realise that these concepts are not well defined in the scientific
sense and that their application may lead to various contradictions, for the
time being we may have to take the concepts unanalysed as they are; but still
we know that they touch reality. It may be useful in this connection to
remember that even in the most precise part of science in mathematics, we
cannot avoid using concepts that involve contradictions. For instance, it is
well known that the concept of infinity leads to contradictions that have been
analysed, but it would be practically impossible to construct the main parts of
mathematics without this concept - Whenever we proceed from the known into the
unknown we may hope to understand, but we may have to learn at the same time a
new meaning of the word `understanding'. We know that any understanding must be
based finally upon the natural language because it is only there that we can be
certain to touch reality,and hence we must be sceptical about any scepticism
with regard to this natural language and its essential concepts. Therefore we,
may use these concepts as they have been used at all times. In this way modern
physics has perhaps opened the door to a wider outlook on the relation between
the human mind and reality". (p. 171-73)

Modern Physics has warned us against the dangers of overestimating the
value and utility of precise scientific concepts : for example, the fundamental
concepts of classical physics no longer hold in quantum mechanics. In
describing atomic phenomena "if one wishes to speak about the atomic
particles themselves one must either use the mathematical scheme as the only
supplement to natural language or one must conbine it with a language that
makes use of a modified logic or of no well-defined logic at all. In the
experiments about atomic events we have to do with things and facts, with phenomena
that are just as real as any phenomena in daily life. But the elementary
particles themselves are not as real; they form a world of potentialities or
possibilities rather than one of things or facts". (p. 160)

A favourite maxim of Bohr of interest in connection with Syadvada is
the distinction between the two kinds of truths, profound truths and trival
truths. For a profound truth its opposite or negation is also a profound truth.
For a trivial truth its opposite is false, an absurdity. Statements expressing
the highest wisdom often involve words whose meaning cannot be defined
unambiguously. "Thus the truth of a statement of the highest wisdom is not
absolute, but is only relative to a suitable meaning for the ambiguous words in
it, with the consequence that the converse statement also has validity and is
also wisdom". Bohr illustrated this with his statement. "There is a
God", a statement of great wisdom and truth, and the converse 'There is no
God' also a statement of great wisdom and truth. (For him who believes that
there is no God, his God is 'no-God'. The aspects of God are infinite,
inexhaustible, inexpressible). This reminds of an oft quoted dialogue between
Lord Mahavira and his favourite disciple Gautam. (Nathmal Tatia, Studies in
Jaina Philosophy, Jain Cultural Research Society, Banaras, (1951) pp. 22-23.)

"Are the souls, O Lord, eternal or non-enternal ?"

"The Souls, O Gautama, are eternal in some respect and
non-enternal in some respect."

"With what end in view, O Lord, is it said that the souls are
enternal in some respect and non-eternal in some respect ?"

"They are enternal. O Gautama, from the view point of substance,
and non-eternal from the view point of modes, and with this end in view it is
said, O Gautama, that the souls are eternal in some respect and non-eternal in
some respect".

"Is the body, O Lord, identical with the soul or is the body
different from it ?"

"The body, O Gautama, is identical with the soul as well as it is
different from it".

Atom and Complementarity

Let us, for the time being, limit ourselves to the domain of
logical-empirical experience, that is communicable, objective facts, and ask
what is the radically new situation we meet with in dealing with atomic
phenomena (quantum physics) as distinct from everyday experience (classical
physics). When we speak of a 'table or chair', any meaningful statement and its
negation cannot both be correct at the same time. If the statement'the chair is in this room' is correct, then
the statement 'the chair is not in this room' is false. Both cannot be true at
the same time. But this fundamental principle of logic and common-sense, is, in
general, violated in atomic phenomena. Atoms in general behave in a manner
completely foreign, totally repugnant, to common-sense and classical logic.

Consider an
idealised situation which brings out the essentials. There is an ‘atom in a
closed box’. the box is divided by a partition into two equal compartments. The
partition has a very small hole so that the atom can pass through it. The hole
can be closed if desired. According to classical logic the atom can be either
in the left compartment (L) or in the right compartment (R). There is no third
alternative. But the new physics forces us to admitother possibilities to explain adequately the results of
experiments. If we at all use the word `box' and `atom', then there is no
escape whatsoever from admitting- in some strange way which totallydefies description in words - that the same
atom is at the same time, in both the compartments. What we are speaking of is
not a case of the atom being sometimes in the left compartment and some times
in the right compartment,but being in both the compartments at the same time .
It is an idea crazy beyond words. And so it is. But there is no escape.

Consider the 'box and atom' situation a little further. We suppose a
beam of light illuminating the box (which we may take to be transparent), and
we study the angular distribution of the intensity of light scattered by the
atom in the box, We make three experiments. Firstly, the atom is placed in L
with the hole closed; secondly, the atom is placed in R with the hole closed;
and thirdly, the atom is placed in the box with the hole open so that it can
move freely in the whole box. The observed intensity-distribution of light for
the third case is truly astonishing. The intensity distribution is not a
mixture, a sum, of the distribution for this first and the second case, the
composition of the mixture depending on the fraction of time spent by the atom
in each of the two compartments. The distribution is in fact altogether
different. It shows an interference feature which can be only explained by
assuming that the incident light is scattered from the atom present, at the
same time, in both the compartments : The atom is, in some strange way, in the
two compartments at the same time. It shows in this case a behaviour
fundamentally different from that of a 'particle'. A particle cannot be at two
places at the same time. The new aspect of the atom revealed in the third
experiment is called the 'wave aspect'. A wave fills all available space.
Totally unlike large objects, objects on the atomic scale show a dual aspect, a
particle aspect and a wave aspect. The two aspects which are totally
contradictory in every day experience are complementary at the level of atoms.
Why so ? because nature is so constituted that experiments which demonstrate
the particle aspect and those which demonstrate the wave aspect are mutually
incompatible. We can have only the one set-up or the other, and never the two
can be combined or built together into some super-apparatus to demonstrate both
the aspects at the same time. We ask : What is it that makes these experiments
mutually incompatible ? It arises from the far reaching, and totally
unexpected, fact that an act of observation, even an ideal observation supposed
to be made with `perfect' instruments is inevitably accompanied by certain
minimum disturbance. The disturbance cannot be eliminated, cannot be analysed
or allowed for. It is inherent in the nature of things. It disturbs in an
unpredictable way, the state of the system under observation. We cannot even
think of an experiment a thought experiment, as it is called-that can be made
free of the concomitant minimum uncertainty. The effect of this inevitable
disturbance is altogether negligible for a big object, but for an atomic object
the effect is drastic. It drastically modified the state of the system under
investigation. (This is technically called the `reduction of the wave packet').
It is because of this disturbance, an integral feature of an act of
observation, that an experiment to study the wave aspect of an atomic system is
incompatible with a set-up to studythe
particle aspect.

We spoke of the wave-particle duality. Consider the usual arrangement
for obtaining interference fringes. For the light beam each photon must pass
through both the holes (at the same time) to produce interference fringes. This
is observed on the plate P. Suppose we wish to find out how a photon can
simultaneously go through the two holes. How can this happen ? For this
purpose, we determine the momentum of the plate P in the Y-direction. The plate
had to be kept rigidly fixed to observe the fringes. But to observe the
momentum of the plate, it must be completely free to move in the Y-direction.
Further, if we are to be able to decide whether the photon came from the
direction of the hole A or from the hole B, the uncertainty in the momentum in
the Y-direction of the plate should be small compared to hy0/c.

This requirement about the uncertainty in momentum makes the position
of the plate uncertain. It is given by the Heisenberg indeterminacy
principle.But for the production of interference
fringes it is necessary thatHence,
it is apparent, an apparatus designed to tell us how a photon passes through
the two holes cannot in the very nature of the experiment record the
interference fringes. The uncertain spread in the position of the plate is far
more than the separation between the fringes. The fringes are totally washed
out. If the momentum change is (+hv/0), the photon came through the hole B, if
the momentum change is (-hv/0), then it come through A : and if the momentum
change is nearly zero, the photon came through both the holes. (In the latter
case we should observe the interference fringes). What we observe is that a
photon either goes through A or though B, but never through the two holes at
the same time. But if we forego to determine the direction of the incoming
photoms and keep the plate P fixed, interference fringes are recorded on the
plate - announcing that each photon did go through the two holes at the same
time. We have an extraordinary situation. A photon goes through the two holes
if we forego any attempt to observehow
this happens; but if we probe into it, the photon goes through only one hole or
the other and no interference fringes are produced. It is because of this
mutual exclusiveness of the two set-ups, (1) and (2) in the figure that the
particle and the wave aspects for the photon are complementary and not
contradictory. And the same holds for any ‘small object' : it holds good for
any object which is not big compared to atoms.

For a 'small object' a precise measurement of its momentum invalidates
any previous knowledge we had of its position. And a precise measurement of its
position invalidates any earlier knowledge we had of its momentum. This occurs
as we have emphasised, because of the disturbance which always accompanies an
act of observation. The uncertainties in the position and in the momentum for a
small object are connected by the Heisenberg relations. The existence of the
Planck Constant (h) introduces an extraordinarily novel feature in that a
measurement of some observable is incompatible with a measurement, at the same
time, of some others. It has no parallel in everyday experience or classical
physics.

There is something more to it, and much more strange, which is not
always appreciated. Suppose the two holes A and B are replaced by the `box'
with the two compartments we described earlier. Illuminate the (transparent)
box with a beam of light. If the plate P is kept fixed and interference fringes
will be observed telling us that atom is present at the same time, in both the
compartments L and R. We now decide to make the plate free so that any change
in its momentum in the Y-direction can be determined. Then we find that the
scattered light comes either from L or from R. the atom is either in L or R,
but never in both the compartments at the same time. Imagine-and this is
permissible so far as the principle of the experiment goes- that the distance
between the box and plate P is very large so that light takes a fairly long
time (t) to travel from the box to the plate. It is up to us to choose to
observe either the fringes on plate (telling us that the atom is present both
in L and R), or to observe the momentum of the plate (telling us that the atom
is either in L or R). A photon takes time (t) in travelling from the box to the
plate. If we decide to make a choice, say, at this instant, whether to observe
the interference fringes or the direction of the incoming photons, how could it
influence the state of the atom a long time (t) earlier ? This looks utterly
strange- totally. The lesson is that the behaviour of `small objects' is not
visualisable. It is not describable in ordinary language. "There is no
more remarkable feature of the quantum world (characterised by the Planck
Constant) than a strange coupling it brings about between future and
past...."

The disturbance we are speaking of is a direct result of the existence
of the Planck Constant. In describing the motion of large objects we can ignore
its existence. But this constant (h) is of paramount importance in determining
the course of atomic phenomenon. Notice that experiments, and results of
experiments, dealing with atom and elementary particles are described
unambiguously in ordinary language (classical logic). There could be no science
if this were not so. But the situation is completely, and most exasperatingly,
different if we wish to understand and speak about the atomic particle
themselves. How can the same atom be in two compartments L and R at the same
time ? (Impossible ?). It is unimaginable. It is not describable in ordinary
language. The world of atoms takes up to a `deeper layer'' or `deeper plane' of
reality far removed from the world of everyday experience. The characteristic
of the new plane of reality is the Planck Constant. We expect that as we probe
deeper in our understanding of Nature, far deeper layers of reality are likely
to be encountered (each characterised possibly by some fundamental constant of
Nature).

We may denote by L0 the plane of our everyday reality, and by L1the
plane of atomic reality. It is important to recognise, as repeatedly stressed
here that the later reality cannot be apprehended or described in ordinary
language without introducing absurdities and contradictions. To talk of L1 in
the language of L0 is to talk nonsense. In terms of L0 it is inexpressible or
avayakata. It is this inexpressibility or avaykata-property that provides the
clue, a pointer, to the existence of L1. In describing L1 we must (as stated
earlier) "either use the mathematical scheme as the only supplement to
natural language or we must combine it with a language that makes use of a
modified logic or of no well-defined logic at all" (Heisenberg 1958,
p.160).

A Summing up of the Physical Situation

To sum up:

1.We
investigate the world of atom with `tools' which are unambiguously described in
ordinary language. But the world of atoms with its wave-particle duality is
totally beyond description in ordinary language (classical logic). "A
thing cannot be a form of wave motion and composed of particles at the same
time ....nevertheless, both these statements describe correctly the same
situation : the equal legitimacy of both descriptions and the impossibility of
eliminating either in favour of the other are inevitable consequence of
Heisenberg indeterminacy relations". (M. Jammer 1974, The Philosophy of
Quantum Mechanics, p. 344).

To
describe the world of atoms we have to use the mathematical formalism of
quantum mechanics. The atom in quantum mechanics has no sharply defined
boundaries or size. It is described by a mathematical quantity called a
wave-function- and the wave-function, strictly speaking, fills all available
space. Mathematics is perhaps best defined as the discipline that deals with
infinities. It therefore involves concepts which (as Godel proved in his
epochal work) are inherently "incomplete" and not free of
contradictions. It may seem strange that mathematics, the most precise branch
of human knowledge, contains contradiction in a deep sense. But is this feature
paradoxical and it may appear which gives to mathematics its surprising and
unique power to deal with `layers of reality' beyond the compass of ordinary
language and everyday experience.

There
have been attempts specially by Birkhoff and Neumann, and Weizsacker to modify
classical logic by discarding the law of the excluded middle to bring it in
conformity with the demands of quantum theory. These developments are of
interest for Syadvada logic, but we shall not go into that here. (See chapter
VIII, Quantum Logic, Jammer 1974, p. 340-416).

2.We
have already noted the distinction, on the basis of the Planck Constant,
between `big objects' and `small objects'. However, to understand the small, we
have to begin with the big; but big objects are made up of small ones (atoms).
We therefore seem to be involved in some kind of a paradoxical or circular
situation. The physico-philosophical problem of the relation between the big
and the small is very difficult one. Recently, some new light has been thrown
on the problem by the work of Prigogine and his associates. (I. Prigogine,
Science, 1 Sept. 1978).

3.It
is worth noting the special role of the observer in quantum mechanics. We have
seen that to make an observation is to make a choice between two or more
incompatible measurement procedures. Choice implies consciousness and a freedom
to elect between alternatives. This possibly has most far-reaching
consequences-but we do not quite know at present. It possibly implies a kind of
some strange coupling between future and past. Every observation is a
participation in genesis. J. A. Wheeler 1977, Genesis and observership, in
Fundamental Problems in the Special Sciences, ed. P. Butks and J. Hintikka.

4.The
physical example of the atom and the box described earlier is presented
diagramatically and compared with the seven modes of Syadvada. The quantum
mechanical description in the usual notation is also added in the middle
column.

Seven Modes of Syadvada and the example of an ‘atom’ in a ‘box’ with
two compartments.

The Syadvada dialectic (Syad means "May be") was formulated
by Jaina thinkers probably more than two thousand years ago. Syadvada asserts
that the knowledge of reality is possible only by denying the absolutists
attitude. According to the Syadvada scheme every fact of reality leads to seven
ways or modes of description. These are combinations of affirmation and
negation :

(1) Existence, (2) Non-existence, (3)Occurrence (successive) of Existence and Non-existence, (4)
Inexpressibility or Indeterminateness, (5) Inexpressibility as qualified by
Existence, (6) Inexpressibility as qualified by Non-existence and (7)
Inexpressibility as qualified by both Existence and Non-existence.

The fourth mode of inexpressibility or avayakta is the key element of
the Syadvada dialectic. This is especially well brought out by our discussion
of waveparticle duality in modern physics. (See. also P.C. Mahalanobis, and
J.B.S. Haldane. Sankhya, May 1957, Indian Statistical Institute Calcutta. Their
papers deal with the significance of Syadvada for the foundations of modern
statistics.)

Take any meaningful statement. Call it 'A'. It may describe a fact of
experience. It could be proposition of logic or mathematics. The Syadada
dialectic demands that in the very nature of things the negative statement is
also correct. Denote by not-A the negative statement of 'A'. The conditions
under which the two statement, A and not-A, are correct cannot, of course, be
the same. (In general) the respective conditions are mutually exclusive. Given
a statement 'A'. it may not be at all easy to discover the conditions or
situations under which not-A holds. It may even appear at the time impossible.
But faith in Syadvada should keep us not to continue the search. For example,
in the geometry of Euclid, the sum of the three angles of triangle is two right
angles. The negation of this theorem is a new geometry in which the sum of
three angles of a triangle is not equal to two right angles. It was some two
thousand years after Euclid that non-Euclidean geometry was discovered in the
nineteenth century.

Einstein's theory of general relativity is based on this geometry. When
we know that both 'A' and not-A are correct, we are ready to move on to a
deeper layer or a plane of reality which corresponds to simultaneous existence
of both A and its negation. The deeper plane cannot be described in terms of
the conceptual framework which described 'A' and not-A : In this framework it
is avayakta. In the conceptual framework of `A' and not-A, for any particular
situation, either A is true or not-A is true. The two being mutually exclusive
cannot be simultaneously true. Think of the example of an atom in a box. In the
framework of classical physics, as described earlier, the atom is either in the
box or it is outside the box. There is no third possibility at this level or
plane of reality. We have called this plane L0. The Syadvada assertion of the
simultaneous existence of `A' and not-A, in some, strange, not explicable in
the plane L0, leads us on to the search for a new deeper framework, or new
dimension, of reality characterised by features not explicable in L0. Call the
new framework L1. An understanding of L1 will eventually lead on to a still
deeper layer L2, and so on. Syadvada is a dynamic dialectic taking us ever
deeper and deeper in the exploration and comprehension of reality. What is now
and of the utmost significance as vividly brought out by modern physics, is the
fact that Syadvada provides a valuable guide and inspiration for fundamental
studies in science and mathematics. The Syadvada, indispensable for ethical and
spiritual quest and for ahimsa, is also of the greatest value for the
advancement of natural science. In case this seems surprising we may remind
ourselves of the profound words of Erwin Schroedinger : "I consider
science an integrating part of our endeavour to answer the one great
philosophical question which embraces all other, the one that Plotinus
expressed by his brief-who are we ? And more than that : I consider this not
only one of the tasks, but the task, of science the only one that really
counts".

For the quest of truth, scientific, moral and spiritual, what is most
important is the Syadvada or the complementarity principle, the precise
definitions and number of modes are not so important.

Appendix

Examples of Syadvada

approach to fundamental problems

1.Determinism
and Free will

Two contradictory facts :

a)One
knows by direct incontrovertible experience that it is one's own self that
directs the motion of one's body; and because of this freedom arises moral
responsibility for one's actions.

b)The
body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature. (See E.
Schroedinger, What is Life ? Cambridge University Press, 1948).

(See
especially, Einstein's Creative Thinking and the General Theory of Relativity,
A Rothenberg, Am J. Psychiatry. January 1979).

4.a)
`We can draw a straight line joining two points'.

b) `We
cannot draw a straight line joining two points'. This reminds of Zeno's
Paradox.

(See A New Perspective on Infinity,
New Scientist, 8 June, 1978).

The Indian-Jaina Dialectic of Syadvad in Relation to
Probability

By P.C. Mahalanobis

Brief History of Syadvada

There are certain ideas in Indian-Jaina logic called syadvada which
seem to have close relevance to the concepts of probability, and which can,
therefore supply a convenient background to my own observations on the
foundations of statistics. It is always difficult to be sure about the exact
meaning of logical and philosophical phrases which were current 1500 or 2500
years ago : and it is not claimed (and I also agree that it would not be
correct to claim) that the concept of probability in its present from was
recognised in syadvada but the phrases used in syadvada seem to have a special
significance in connection with the logic of statistical inference.

I shall first give a brief historical account of syadvada. Jaina
religion and philosophy came into prominence from the time of its great leader
Mahavira (599-527 B.C.) who was a contemporary of Buddha, the founder of the
Buddhist religion. The earliest reference to syadvada occurs is the writings of
Bhadrabahu who is believed to have given the following explanation of syadvada
: syat = "may be", and vada = "assertion", or the assertion
of possibilities.1

"The syadvada is set forth as follows : (1) May be, it is; (2) may
be, it is not; (3) may be, it is and it is not; (4) may be, it is
indescribable; (5) may be, it is and yet is indescribable; (6) may be, it is
not and it is also indescribable; (7) may be, it is and it is not and it is
also indescribable."2

There were two authors of the name Bhadrabahu, the senior belonging to
the period 433-357 B.C., and the junior to about 375 A.D., and it is not
definitely known whether the above explanation was given by the senior or the
junior Bhadrabahu; but the above exposition is usually ascribed to the senior
Bhadrabahu of the 4th century B.C.1 There is
indisputable mention of syadvada in the Nyayavatara of Siddhasens Divakara2 (about 480-550 A.D.). A little later
Samantabhadra (about 600 A.D.) gives a full exposition of the seven parts of
Syad-vada or Sapta-bhanginaya in his Aptaminamsa.3
It is clear that syadvada was well developed by the sixth century A.D.,and
received a great deal of attention in the mediaeval period of Indian logic; the
syadvadamanjari of Mallisena (1292 A.D.) for example, is a separate treatise on
`the same theory.4 There are, of course,
still later works such as Vimala Dasa's Saptabhangitarangini and a large number
of mediaeval and modern commentaries. I am, therefore, dealing with a
well-known theme which is considered to be the most original contribution of
Jaina logic to Indian thought.5

Dialectic of Seven-fold Predication

I shall next refer to the actual text in Sanskrit of the dialectic of
sevenfold predication (saptabhanginaya) :

The word syat has been translated as "may be" but this does
not bring out the full implications. The Sanskrit word in mentioning one
possibility has also some indirect allusion to other possibilities. The
Sanskrit word asti may be rendered as "it is", "it exists",
or "it is existent"; and nasti is the negation, i.e. "it is
not" "it does not exist", or "it is non-existent". The
third category predicates the possibility of both asti and nasti; of both
"it is" and "it is not". The first three categories conform
thus to the categories of classical logic and do not present any difficulty.

The fourth category is avaktavya which I have translated as
"indeterminate". Other authors have used the words
"indescribable",[1]
or "inexpressible" or "indefinite". For example, Satkari
Mookerjee explains "The inexpressible may be called indefinite"....
(JPN, p. 115). I prefer "indeterminate" because this is nearer the
interpretation which I have in mind.

It will be useful if at this stage I give an illustration. Consider the
tossing of a coin; and suppose it turns up "head". We may then say
(1) "it is head" (now). This also implies, (2) "it is
not-head" (on some other occasion). The third category follows without
difficulty, (3) "it is, and it is not" which is a synthetic
predication based on both (1) and (2). The fourth category predicates that the
position is still (4) indeterminate.

This, however, does not exhaust the possibilities of predication or
modes of knowledge. For example, if we know that it is a coin which has
"head" on one side and "not-head" or "tail" on
the other side, and we also know that it must turn up either "head"
or "tail", we may then predicate that (5) there exists one type of
indeterminateness which is capable of being resolved in terms of the first four
categories. On the other hand we may know that the subject of discourse is not
a coin but something else to which the category of indetermination in the above
sense cannot apply, we may then use the sixth mode of predication and assert
that (6) there does not exist that type of indeterminateness which is capable
of being resolved in terms of the first four categories. Finally, there is the
seventh mode of knowledge where we may be able to predicate that sometimes the
possibility of resolution of indetermination exists (as in the fifth mode) and
sometimes this possibility does not exist (as in the sixth mode).

According to syadvada, the above seven categories are necessary and are
also sufficient so that they exhaust the possibilities of knowledge. There is a
minority view which hold that there are further possibilities of (8)
vaktavyasca avaktavyasca, a kind of duplicated indeterminateness together with
successive categories of the fifth, sixth, and seventh types in an infinite
regression but the accepted opinion is that the hypothetical eighth category is
identical with the fourth so that there is no need of more than seven
categories.

I should like to emphasise that the fourth category is a synthesis of
three basic modes of "it is" (assertion)"it is not" (negation), and inexpressible, or
indefinite, or "indeterminate" (which itself is resolvable into
either "it is" or "it is not"), and supplies the logical
foundations of the modern concept of probability. Consider the throw of a coin.
It has the possibility of head (it is) or not-head (it is not); sometimes head
and sometimes not head; and the combination of both possibilities of "it
is" and "it is not" in an yet indefinite or indeterminate form.
The fifth category of knowledge in Jaina logic predicates the existence of
indetermination (which we may perhaps interpret, in modern language, as the
assertion of the existence of a probability field). The sixth category denies
the existence of a probability field; while the seventh category covers the whole
range of possibilities mentioned in the other six categories.

Relativism

It would be of interest to consider some further aspects of Jaina
logic. The points to be stressed are that Jaina thought is non-absolutist(that is, it is relativist) and realist.
Siddhasena Divakara (480-550 A. D.) in Nyayavatara (which is accepted as the
earliest Jaina work on pure logic at present available) gave an exposition of
syadvada (knowledge of the all-sided method) of which the authentic text is
described below :

"Syadvada, which literally signifies assertion of
possibilities, seeks to ascertain the meaning of things from all possible
standpoints. Things are neither existent nor non-existent absolutely .... Syad
which signifies "may be" denotes all these seven possibilities, that
is, a thing may be looked at from one of the above seven points of view, there
being no eighth alternative."1

It has been pointed out that :

"All objects are multiform (anekanta) according to him
(i.e. the Jaina). From their many-sided nature it follows that all judgements
are relative. They are trueunder
certain conditions. They are conditional or hypothetical. No judgements are
absolutely true. The word "perhaps" must be added to all judgements
to indicate their conditional character. This is Syadvada or the doctrine of
relativity of judgements.”2

“The Jains emphasise manifold nature of real things which are
endowed with infinite qualities, modes, and relations to the other things.2 They have identity-in-difference. The
Vedantists emphasise pure identity and deny plurality. The jainas emphasise
manifoldness of inter-related reals and deny pure identity. They are
anti-Absolutists. They are advocates of relative pluralism."3

It has been also pointed out that :

"Thus the Jainas hold that no affirmation, or judgement, is
absolute in nature, each is true in own limited sense only, and for each one of
them any of the above seven alternatives (technically called saptabhangi) holds
good. (See syadvadamanjari with Hemachandra's commentary p. 166 etc.) The
Jainas say that other Indian systems each from its own point of view asserts
itself to be the absolute and the only point of view. They do not perceive that
the nature of reality is such that the truth of any assertion is merely
conditional and holds good only in certain conditions, circumstances, or senses
(upadhi). It is thus impossible to make any affirmation which is universally
and absolutely valid. For a contraryor
contradictory affirmation will always be found to hold good of any judgement in
some sense or other. As all reality is partly permanent and partly exposed to
change in the form of losing and gaining old and new qualities, and is thus
relatively permanent and changeful, so all our affirmations regarding truth are
also only relatively valid and invalid. Being non-being and indefinite, the
three categories of logic, are all equally available in some sense or other in
all their permutations for any and every kind of judgement. There is no
universal and absolute position or negation, and all judgements are valid only
conditionally. 1

Realism

Jaina logic is essentially realistic : "The Jaina philosopher
maintains that existents are possessed of an infinite number of attributes and
characteristics which can be discovered by experience alone. He refused to put
a premium on internal intuition. The mind, even with its active contributions,
which the Jaina does not seek to deny, is believed by him to be an instrument
of discovery and not a creator of facts." (JPN; p.1)

"Logic has to work upon the data of experience and is as
much an instrument as experience is.""Pure logic, prior to and independent of experience, is a blind
guide to the determination of truth. Logic is to rationalise and systematise
what experience offers. "(JPN, p.8)

" A things is existent, is non-existent and is both
existent and non-existent, but always subject to limitations imposed by
objective differences of substance, time, space and attributes
(dravya-ksetra-kala-bhavapeksaya).1
The differences in predication are not due to our subjective contemplation from
different angles of vision, but founded upon objectively real attributes. They
are facts irrespective of the consideration whether we contemplate them or
not." (JPN, p.107)

"The Jaina does not see any reason why things should be
particulars alone. Things are, according to the Jaina, both universals and
particulars together. A real is a particular which possesses a generic
attribute". (JPN p2.). " in conformity with the plain verdict of
experience, the nature of reals is admitted to be made up of both the elements
- universal and the particular and to be cognised as such by perceptual
knowledge."(JPN, p.3)

"Things are neither exclusively particulars nor are they
exclusively universals, but they are a concrete realisation of both. The two
elements can be distinguished by reflective thought, but cannot be rent
asunder. So our experience of one particular individual is not confined to that
individual alone, but extends to unperceived individuals also in so far as the
latter typify the universal as a part of their constitution. Individuals, even
when they belong to a class, will vary from one another. Repetition of
experience only helps us to take stock of the universal in its true character,
but once the latter is known, it does not stand in verification or confirmation
by further observation".1 (JPN,
p.6)

The Jaina emphasises the multiple nature of reality and accepts the
standpoint of non-absolutism. "He asserts that neither unity nor diversity
sums up the nature of a real, but both taken together do it. Unity is not
exclusive of diversity or vice versa. The difficulty that is confronted is not
grounded upon objective reality, but arises from a subjective aberration, which
consists in the imagination of inconsistency between unity and diversity. But
unity is associated with diversity and diversity is never found as part from
unity, which is its very foundation. (JPN, p.58)

"The central thesis of the Jaina is that there is not only
diversity of reals, but each real is equally diversified. Diversification as
induced by relations has been explained. The conclusion is legitimate that each
real is possessed of an infinite number of modes at every moment. The number of
reals is infinite. All things are related in one way or the other and relations
induce relational qualities in the relata, which accordingly become infinitely
diversified at each moment and throughout their career. Things are neither
momentary2 nor uniform"3 . (JPN, p.70) According to the Jaina
"a real changes every moment and at the same time continues The continuity
never breaks down." (JPN, p.70)

"A real is that which not only originates, but is also liable to
cease and at the same time capable of persisting. Existence, cessation, and
persistence are the fundamental characteristics of all that is real. This
concept of reality is the only one which can avoid the conclusion that the
world of plurality, which is the world of experience, is an illusion."
(JPN, p.72)

The relativism of the Jaina philosopher is to be sharply contrasted
with some of the other Indian systems of philosophy.

"The Vedantist start with the premise that reality is one
universal existence; the Buddhist fluxist1
believes in atomic particulars, each absolutely different from the rest and
having nothing underlying them to bind them together. The Naiyayika2 believes both to be combined in an
individual, though he maintains that the two characters are different and
distinct. The Jaina differs from them all and maintains that universal and the
particular are only distinguishable traits in a real, which is at once
identical with and different from both." (JPN p.13)

It is, however, necessary to notice that :

"There is a difference-
and intrinsic difference at that - between a manifested and an unmanifested
real. They are identical and different both - identical in so far as it is the
same substance and different in so far as it undergoes a change of
characteristic. This is the Jaina position of non-absolutism." (JPN,
p.39.)

"A real is not entirely expressible in all its aspects and modes.
But it is not inexpressible altogether. A real being a multiple entity is
expressible and inexpressible both in reference to different aspects; it is
expressible in so far as it partakes of a universal and is inexpressible so far
as it is a unique individual."3
(JPN., p. 113.)

"The unique individuality of a real is not accessible to
conceptual thought and, hence, to language, but it is reached by an analysis of
the nature of reality as it is apprehended in perception; we have tried to
prove, following the guidance of the Jaina philosophers, that the nature of
reals, on analysis, has been found to exhibit the following traits, viz.,
existence, non-existence and inexpressibility." (JPN, 127.)

Relational Aspects

Relational aspects have received special notice in Jaina logic.

" Everything is related with every other thing, and this
relation involves the emergence of a relational quality. The qualities cannot
be known a priori, though a good number of them can be deduced from certain
fundamental characteristics." (JPN, p.3)"A real is only a part of a system knitted together by a network of
relations, from which it cannot be divorced." (JPN, p. 109.) "Every
real is thus hedged round by a network of relations and attributes, which we
propose to call its system or context or universe of discourse, which
demarcates it from others." (JPN, p.114.)

"It is idle to raise questions of chronological status as
to whether the unity is prior to the elements or the elements are prior to the
unity. In the concrete real at any rate they are co-ordinate. This unity of
being and non-being,or rather of
self-being and negation of other-being, is beyond the reach of logical
concepts, and hence, of linguistic symbols, which are but the vehicles of such
concepts. The Jaina in recognition of this inalienable character of reals
declares them to be inexpressible. The inexpressible may be called indefinite
from the standpoint of formal logic. But this is not the whole character of a
real. It is also expressible and logically definable as existent as
non-existent.1 " (JPN, p.115)

"The Jaina conception of relation may be summed up as
follows. Relations are objective verities which are as much given to intuition
and to thought as the terms are. A relation has no objective status outside the
terms. It is the result of an internal change in the nature of the terms. It is
sui generis in that it cannot be placed under the head of identify or of
difference, both of which are contained as traits in its being." (JPN, p.211.)

The Jaina view of relatedness of the things is very naturally extended
to the discussion of causality.

"... neither synchronism nor succession is believed by the
Jaina to be the essential characteristic of causal relation. Causality is a
relation of determination. The effects is that whose coming into being is
necessarily determined by the being of another. The determinant is called the
cause and the determinatum is called the effect. The determinant may be
synchronous with the determined or may be separated by interval..." (JPN,
p. 212.)

"What is the organ of the knowledge of causality ? The
Jaina answers that it is perception of the concomitance in agreement and
difference... The Jaina takes the observation of concomitance in agreement and
in difference to be one observation,.... The Jaina posits a twofold cause for
the perception of universal relation-an internal and an external condition. The
internal condition is found in the developed state of our mind and the external
condition is the repeated observation of the sequence of the two events".
(JPN p. 217.)

...."Such concepts as causality, substance, attribute and
the like, are no doubt the ways in which the mind works up the data of
experience, but this does not mean with the Jaina that they are true of the
mind only and not of the extra-mental reality which they purport to understand.
The Jaina would take them to be the instruments of discovery of the nature of
reality, internal and external, which render the same kind of service as the
sense-organs do". (JPN, p. 217.)

...."The different categories viz., the selves, matter,
time, space and so on, are deductions from experimental data. They have been
posited since general concepts presuppose their existence and since without
these principles the data of experience cannot be organised into a system.
These categories in spite of their general and comprehensive character are not
only not inconsistent with the existence of individual entities, but on the
contrary they are entirely based on the objective data. Without the individual
existents these categories would be reduced to unmeaning class concepts. The
affirmation of categories as objective principles is thus proof of the
existence of individual reals, which are included within the ambit of these
categories. Without the individuals forming their contents the categories would
be empty and barren, and the individuals without the categories would be
reduced to a welter of chaos. The Jaina is a believer in plurality no doubt,
but that plurality is not an unrelated chaos. The plurality is a system
inasmuch as each individual is cemented with the rest by definite bonds of
relationship". (JPN, pp. 299-300.)

"From the analytic point of view (paryayarthikanaya) the
world is an infinite plurality with their infinite variations and modes. But
the analytic view does not give us the whole nature of reality as it is. It is
a partial picture that we derive of the world by means of such approach. The
whole gamut of reality, however, reveals its universal unitise nature as one
existence when it is envisaged from the synthetic angle of vision
(dravyarthikanaya)". (JPN, p. 301.)

"It seems legitimate to conclude that the universe is one
existence which manifests itself,as
substance (dravya) as it unifies the modes and attributes. The selfsame
existence again reveals itself as Space in so far as it provides accommodation
for the infinite plurality of existence within itself (ksetra). It is the same
existence which manifests itself as Time (w.f. kala) is so far as it changes
into aspects, past and future modes. It is the same existence that evolves as
phases and modes, attributes and states. The substance, time, space, attribute
and relation are thus evolved from the same existence. The different
categories, thus viewed as functional variations of one principle, are no
longer in a position of antagonism of in-different isolation. (Astasahasri, p.
113.)

The world of reals is thus not only plurality but a unity also.
It is one universe that the Jaina metaphysics gives us. But the oneness is not
secured at the sacrifice of the many, nor are the many left in unsocial
indifference". (JPN, pp. 301-302.)

It has been observed that "Jain philosophy is entitled to be
called the paragon of realism. If experience be the ultimate source of
knowledge of reality and its behaviour, we cannot repudiate the plurality of
things. The admission of plurality necessitates the recognition of the dual
nature of reals as constituted of `being' and `non-being' as fundamental
elements. One real will be distinguished from another real and this
distinction, unless it is dismissed as error of judgement, presupposes that
each possesses a different identity, in other words that being of one is not
the being of the other. This truth is propounded by the Jaina in that things
are real, so far as they have a self-identity of their own unshared by others
(svarupasatta), and they are unreal in respect of a different self-identity
(pararupasatta) ...The logic of Jaina is empirical logic, which stands in irreconcilable
opposition to pure logic.1 "
(JPN, p. 181.)

J.Sinha (HIP., vol II, p. 110) gives the following summary of Jaina
philosophy : "The world is self-existent and eternal. All objects of the
world are multiform (anekanta) and endued with infinite qualities and relations
(anantadharmaka). This is relative pluralism. The reality can be considered
from different points of views or nayas. The nayas are the standpoints....All
judgements are relative and probable. No judgements are absolute. This is
syadvada. These are seven ways of predication. This is called saptabhanginaya.1 "

It is not strange that Jainas believe that "the different systems
of philosophy are only partial views of reality. Jainism is the complete view
of reality". (J. Sinha, HIP, vol., p. 180.)

Some General Observations

I have given actual quotations from books on Jaina philosophy to convey
the thoughts in their original form (of course, in English translation) without
the bias of any subjective interpretations. I should now like to make some
brief observations of my own on the connexion between Indian-Jaina views and
the foundations of statistical theory. I have already pointed out that the
fourth category of syadvada, namely, avaktavya or the "indeterminate"
is a synthesis of three earlier categories (1) assertion ("it is"),
(2) negation ("it is not"), and (3) assertion and negation in
succession. The fourth category of syadvada, therefore, seems to me to be in
essence the qualitative (but not quantitative) aspect of the modern concept of
probability. Used in a purely qualitative sense, the fourth category of
predication in Jaina logic corresponds precisely to the meaning of probability
which covers the possibility of (a) something existing, (b) something
not-existing, and (c) sometimes existing and sometimes not-existing. The
difference between Jaina "avaktavya" and "probability" lies
in the fact that the latter (that is, the concept of probability) has definite
quantitative implications, namely, the recognition of numerical frequencies of
occurrence of (1) "it is", or of (2) "it is not"; and hence
in the recognition of relative numerical frequencies of the first two
categories (of "it is" and "it is not") in a synthetic form
It is the explicit recognition of (and emphasis on) the concept of numerical
frequency ratios which distinguishes modern statistical theory from the Jaina
theory of syadvada. At the same time it is of interest to note that 1500 or
2500 years ago syadvada seems to have given the logical back-ground of
statistical theory in a qualitative form.1

Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the Jaina view that
"a real is a particular which possesses a generic attribute". This is
very close to the concept of an individual in relation to the population to
which it belongs. The Jaina view in fact denies the possibility of making any
predication about a single and unique individual which would be also true in
modern statistical theory.

The third point to be noted is the emphasis given in Jaina philosophy
on the relatedness of things and on the multiform aspects of reals which appear
to be similar (again in a purely qualitative sense) to the basic ideas
underlying the concepts of association, correlation and concomitant variation
in modern statistics.

The Jaina views of "existence, persistence, and cessation" as
the fundamental characteristics of all that is real necessarily leads to a view
of reality as something relatively permanent and yet relatively changing which
has a flavour of statistical reasoning. "A real changes every moment and
at the same continues" is a view which is some what sympathetic to the
underlying idea of stochastic processes.

Fifthly, a most important feature of Jaina logic is its insistence on
the impossibility of absolutely certain predication and its emphasis on
non-absolutist and relativist predication. In syadvada, the qualification
"syat", that is, "may be" or "perhaps" must be
attached to every predication without any exception. All predication, according
to syadvada, thus has a margin of uncertainty which is somewhat similar to the
concept of "uncertain inference" in modern statistical theory. The
Jaina view, however, is essentially qualitative in this matter (while the great
characteristic of modern statistical theory is its insistence on the
possibility and significance of determining the margin of uncertainty in a
meaningful way). The rejection of absolutely certain predication naturally
leads Jaina philosophy continually to emphasise the inadequacy of
"pure" or "formal" logic, and hence to stress the need of
making inferences on the basis of data supplied by experience.

I should also like to point but that the Jaina view of causality as
"a relation of determination" based onthe observation of "concomitance in agreement and in
difference" has dual reference to an internal condition "in the
developed state of our mind" (which would seem to correspond to the state
of organised knowledge in any given context) and also to an external condition
based on "the repeated observation of the sequence of the two events"
which is suggestive of a statistical approach.

Finally, I should draw attention to the realist and pluralist views of
Jaina philosophy and the continuing emphasis on the multiform and infinitely
diversified aspects of reality which amounts to the acceptance of an
"open" view of the universe with scope for unending change and
discovery. For reasons explained above, it seems to me that the ancient
Indian-Jaina philosophy has certain interesting resemblance’s to the
probabilistic and statistical view of reality in modern times.

References

Das Gupta, S. (1922) : A History of Indian Philosophy, 1, Cambridge
University Press.

Sinha, Jadunath (1952) : History of Indian Philosophy, Central Book
Agency, Calcutta.

Vidyabhusana, Satis Chandra (1921) : A History of Indian Logic,
Calcutta University. (1909) : Nyayavatara, Indian Research Society, Calcutta.

The Syadvada System ofPredication

By J. B. S. Haldane

The search for truth by the scientific method does not lead to complete
certainty. Still less does it lead to complete uncertainty. Hence any logical
system which allows of conclusions intermediate between certainty and
uncertainty should interest scientists. The earliest such system known to me is
the Syadvada system of the Jaina philosopher Bhadrabahu (?433-357 B.C.).
Mahalanobis (1954) has commented on it. A central feature of this system is the
saptabhanginaya or list of seven types of predication. These are as follows.

(1) syadastiMay be it is.

(2) syatnastiMay be it is not.

(3) syadastinasti ca.May be it is and is not.

(4) syadavaktavyah.May be it is indeterminate

(5) syadasti ca avaktavyasca.May be it is and is indeterminate.

(6) syatnasti ca avaktavyasca.May be it is
not and is indeterminate.

(7) syadasti nasti ca
avaktavyasca.May be it is, is not, and is indeterminate

Mahalanobis illustrated this from the throw of a coin, and held that it
could serve as a foundation for statistics. However I wish to show that it
arises naturally in simpler cases, including simple cases where the affirmative
predication asti would be "This is hot", or "This is a
man".

In any such case an uncertain judgement is usually somewhat
quantitative, as in "I think this is a man, though it may be a
statue." I therefore begin with a very abstract field, that of algebra.
Here we may be certain of our answer. If x+2=3, then x=1. But if x2-3x+2=0,
then x=1 or 2. We cannot say that the probability that x=1 is greater than,
less than, or equal to the probability that x=2. Further data may lead to
either of these judgements. Five hundred years ago one might perhaps have
spoken of indeterminate solutions of equations. Thus if x3 - x2
+ x - 1=0, x=1 or + -1. The last two solutions were avakta (incapable of
being spoken) until the invention of complex numbers. Today we can find better
examples in the field of finite arithmetic.

Consider the finite arithmetic module m. The only admissible values of
a variable are the m residues 0, 1, 2, ...m -2, m -1, that is to say the
possible remainders after division by m. For example module 5, 4+3=7=5+2, so we
write 4+3=2. And 4x3 =12=2x5+2, so we write 4x3=2. Let us
consider the theory of functions module m. We can define any function f(x) by a
table of the values which it assumes for the different admissible values of x.
Thus the function 3x (mod.5) can be defined by the table 0, 3, 1, 4, 2. For
example if x=4, 3x=2. Of course many other functions are identical with it. For
example 3x5=x9+2x5=3x. A
function which assumes all the admissible values unequivocally is called
biunivocal1 , and it is easy to show
that there are m! biunivocal functions. However some functions are univocal,
but their inverses are not. In this case some residues do not occur in the
table, while others occur more than once. For example the table 3x2+1
(mod. 5) is 1, 4, 3, 3, 4. The number of univocal functions is mm,
since each place in the table can be filled in m ways.

If a function is not univocal, but its inverse is univocal, we obtain a
table such as that for ---1/2, namely 0, 1 or 4, --, --, 1 or 4. Here I
introduce the symbol --, for avakta, for an undefined number. There is no
number whose square (mod 5) is 2 or 3. --- may occur in a table as an
alternative to a number. For example the function ex is never
integral when x is a residue other than zero. Nor is it integral for most
values of x which are avakta, such as --2. But it is integral for such numbers
as log 2. Hence the table of ex is 1; --, --, --, --; and 0, 1, 2,
3, 4, or --. The last place in the table corresponds to x=--. Similarly if we
consider the function y defined by y3-y2=x2,
then we find the table

For when x=2 or 3, y3-y2-4=0, so y=2 or 2+
2, the latter two roots being congruent with1/2 (-1+ -7). These quantities are
inexpressible (avakta) module 5. And when x=--, x2=2,3 or --, so y
may be 3 or 4, as well as --.

Thus for a full enumeration of functions module m we need a table with
m+1 places corresponding to the residues 0, 1, 2 -, m-1, and --. In each place
we can set one, or any number, of these symbols, but we must set at least one.
So each place can be filled in 2m+1-1 ways, for each of the m+1
symbols can be present or absent, except that all cannot be absent. Thus the
total number of functions module m is (2m+1-1)m+1, for
example 62, 523, 502, 209 if m=5, as compared with only 120 biunivocal
functions, and 3125 univocal.

Now consider the simplest of the finite arithmetic’s, namely arithmetic
module 2. There are only two elements, 0 and 1 Electronic calculators are based
on this arithmetic. These machines are so designed that each unit, as the
result of any instruction, will be active (1) or inactive (0) at any given
moment. And it is possible, in principle, to predict whether it will be active
or inactive. That is to say ambiguity is avoided, and the machine is designed
to operate in terms of univocal functions Nevertheless it is possible to
provide such a machine with an instruction to which it cannot given an
instruction equivalent to one of the paradoxes of Principia Mathematical, come
to no conclusion, but print 101010.... indefinitely. Clearly a machine could be
designed to print -- in such a case. It is obviously possible to design a
machine which would print "0 or 1" in response to the instruction x2-x=0.
A machine with the further refinement suggested above would respond "0, 1,
or --" to the instruction (x2-x) cos x= 0(mod 2)".
Such a machine could give any of 7 responses, namely :

These are the saptabhanghinaya with the omission of the syllable syad.

I now pass to an example where the saptabhanghinaya is actually applied
in scientific research, and which I suspect is not far from what was in
Bhadrabahu's mind. In the study of the physiology of the sense organs it is
important to determine a threshold. For example a light cannot be seen below a
certain intensity, or a solution of a substance which is tasted as bitter when
concentrated cannot be distinguished from water when it is diluted. Some
experimenters order their subjects to answer "yes" or "no"
to the question "Is this illuminated ?" or "Is this bitter
?" If the experimenter is interested in the psychology of perception he
will permit the subject also to answer "It is uncertain", or some
equivalent phrase. The objection to this is that some subjects may do so over a
wide range of intensities.

Now consider a subject who is shown a series of illuminated patches,
some above his threshold of perception, some below it, and others very close to
it, in a randomised series. We will suppose that he is in a steady state of
sensory adaptation, that he replies in Sanskrit and that he is aware that his
answers will sometimes be incorrect. At any given trial he will answer
"syadasti", "syadavaktavyah", or "syatnasti".
After the second trial of a light of an intensity near the threshold he may
have given two of these answers, for example "syatnasti ca
avaktavyasca". After the third he may have given all three, though this is
not very probable. The possibilities may be schematised as follows :

It is clear that the seven possibilities are exhaustive. My only
possible criticism of Bhadrabahu is this. If the subject has given two
different answers he may be aware that there is a possibility that he will
later give the third. Once he has given all three, no further possibility is
open. It might therefore be argued that the seventh of predication should be
"asti nasti ca avaktavyasca".

On the hypothesis that the subject is in a steady physiological and
psychological state, the probabilities of each of the three answers to any
given stimulus are constant. Let the probabilities of answering syadasti,
syadavaktavyah and syatnasti be p, q, and r, where p-q+1=1. If, after n trials,
the probabilities of the 7 types of predication are P1,n, P2,n,
etc. where P1,n, is the probability of syadasti, etc. then the
vector [P1, n, ;P2,n ; P3,n; P4,n;
P6,n; P7,n] is transformed into the vector [P1,
n+1; P2, n+1; ..... etc.] by multiplication by the matrix.

p000000

0r00000

rpp+r0000

000q000

q00pp+q00

0q0r0q+r0

00q0rp1

Evidently this could be made a little more symmetrical by transposing
row and column (3) and (4).

The latent roots of this matrix are :

1, p+q, q+r, p+r, p, q, r.

soP1n = pn

P2n= rn

P3n= (p+r)n-pn-rn

P4n= qn

P5n=(p+q)n-pn-qn

P6n# (q+r)n-qn-rn

P7n=1-(q+r)n-(r+p)n-(q+r)n+pn+qn+rn.

Thus unless one of p,q or r is zero the final predication will be
syadasti nasti ca avaktavyasca. In many cases when the stimulus is far from the
threshold, p or r will unity. The subject will always, or never, say `this is
bitter', or "this is illuminated", It is likely that q will ever be
unity. So in this case syadavaktavyah will almost always be at best a
provisional predication. It is however possible that p or r (say r) should be
small, but not zero. If so P5,n will reach a maximum for some value
of n and then decline. For example if p=.6, q=.3, r=.1 reaches its maximum
value of .5184 when n=4.

I have dealt with a case which arises when the question asked is as
simple as possible. Human judgements are generally more complicated. We may
attend to the data of several different senses, and of our memories. Thus we
arrive at one conclusion from one set of data, and another from another set. We
say that wood is hard when compared with clay, soft when compared with iron,
indeterminate when compared with similar wood.

The close analysis of vision with a dark adapted eye shows that in this
case at least. Mahalanobis was correct in regarding the saptabhanginaya as
foreshadowing modern statistical theory. It appears that when dark adaptation
is complete, about five quanta of radiation must arrive within a short time in
a small area of the retina before light is reported. Whether they will do so
with a given intensity of illuminationn can only be stated as a probability. It
is probable, though not by any means certain, that more complicated judgements
depend on similar probabilities of events within the central nervous system.

Whatever philosophers of other schools may think, a Jaina can hardly
object to regarding human predication as a special kind of animal behaviour. In
this he agree with followers of Darwin, such as myself. Attempts at a logical
classification of animal behaviours frequently lead to a separation of 2n-1
types, where however n may exceed 3. Thus Haldane (1953) classified the
possible results of learning in an animal as follows. In any situation an
animal will, or will not, give a certain response R, say eating a particular
type of food within a minute of its presentation, or lifting its leg within ten
seconds after an auditory signal is given.

If we compare the set of possible situations in which an animal may be
placed before and after an experience E, they fall into four categories, r r,
rR, R r, and RR. A situation r r is one in which the response is not given
before or after experience. A situation r R is one which it is given after E,
but not before E, and so on. All situation may be r r. For example no-one has
taught a dog to write. Some may be r r and some rR. For example a dog which did
not previously bring objects from the water to his master can learn to do so on
command. In Pavlov's experiments a dog which previously only salivated (R) when
given food, will do so when certain auditory or other stimuli are given. Thus
for such a dog all situations fall into the classes r r, RR, and rR. It can
easily be seen that the effect of any experience on an animal can be classified
according as the situations in which it can be placed fall into one, two,
three, or all four of these classes. There are thus 24-1, or 15
qualitatively different results of an experiment in which an attempt is made to
alter an animal's behaviours. In this classification the animal is assumed
never to give an indeterminate response. If it can do so, both before and
after, there are, as I pointed our, 29-1, or 511 possible results.
The same principles may be applied to the comparison of the behaviour of two
different animals, or two different races or species.

It is foolish to pretend that ancient philosophers anticipated all
modern intellectual developments. And I believe that we, today, can do more
honour to their memories by thinking for ourselves, as they did, than by
devoting our lives to commentaries on them. But if we do so it is our duty to
point out cases where it turns out that our own thought has run parallel to
theirs. I was unaware of Bhadrabahu's existence when I wrote the paper to which
I refer. The fact that I reached a conclusion so like his own suggests that we
may both have seen the same facet of many-splendoured truth.

No doubt we reached it by very different methods, Bhadrabahu by
meditation, I by thinking about the results of concrete experiments on animals.
Such methods will often lead to different conclusions. This was the view of
Warren Hastings in his introduction to `Wilkins' translation of the Bhagavad
Gita.

"But if we are told that there have been men who were
successively, for ages past, in the daily habit of abstracted contemplation,
begun in the earliest period of youth, and continued in many to the maturity of
age, each adding some portion of knowledge to the store accumulated by his
predecessors, it is not assuming too much to conclude, that as the mind ever
gathers strength, like the body, with exercise, so in such exercise it may in
each have acquired the faculty to which they aspired, and their collective
studies have led them to the discovery of new tracks and combinations of
sentiment, totally different from the doctrines with which the learned of other
nations are acquainted : doctrines, which however speculative and subtle,
still, as they possess the advantage of being derived from a source so free
from every adventitious mixture, may be equally founded on truth with the most
simple of our own".

If, on the other hand, the contemplation of one's own mind, and that of
the minds of animals, lead to similar results, such results are, perhaps worthy
of serious consideration.

The concept of anekant occupies a central position in Jaina philosophy.
Although it is not possible exactly to determine the date of its origin, there
is no doubt that the ontology of early Jainism was deeply influenced by this
principle. Originally an ethical mode of speech, being concerned with what one
ought or ought not to speak, it assumed an ontological role in the Ardhamagadhi
Agamas, through three stages of development, viz. vibhajyavada (the method of
answering a question by dividing the issues), nayavada (the method of defining
the framework of reference), and syadvada (the prefixing of the particle syat,
meaning "in a certain reference", to a preposition, indicative of its
conditional character). The anuyogadvaras (doors of disquisition) also played a
vital role in this matter. This ontological orientation was further
strengthened by Umasvati, Siddhasena Divakara and Mallavadin, and the concept
was converted into a full-grown dialectic by Samantabhadra with whom the
classical period of the doctrine begins. The ontological concept now acquires a
logic-in epistemological character, and Jain philosophy is now indentified with
anekantavada (the doctrine of non-absolutism) or syadvada (the doctrine of
conditional statement) or saptabhangi (the doctrine of sevenfold predication).
Anekanta as the negation of an absolutistic position or the rejection of a
biased or truncated view of things is found in the Buddhist, Yoga and Nyaya
schools as well in various contexts. A dispassionate assessment of the worth of
a philosophy from various viewpoints was the objective that the propounders of
anekanta set before themselves. And their efforts in that respect were laudable
in that they succeeded in preserving some of the most valuable non-Jaina
doctrines as well as texts, selected by them for critical comments, which were
otherwise ravished from the world by the cruel hands of destiny.

The Origin

Jainism primarily is an ethical discipline, and as such all its tenets
had a beginning in someone or other of the moral principles upheld by it. Thus
the assertion or denial, affirmation or negation of a philosophical belief was
to be carefully made in consonance with the rules prescribed for the right way
of speaking in order to avoid false statements or unwarranted speculations
having no bearing on the spiritual path of salvation. The metaphysical
speculations about the beginning and end of the cosmos, or its eternality and
non-eternality or the existence and non-existence of the soul before and after
death, and such other issues that exercised the minds of the thinkers of those
days were not considered worth while equally by Mahavira and Buddha. The
latter's repugnance to such problems is attested by the ten avyakrtas
(indeterminables) mentioned in the Majjhima Nikaya (II pp, 107ft, 176ft) and
the former's in the Acaranga (1.8, 1.5) and Sutrakrtanga (11.5, 1-5) where such
speculations are considered as impractical and leading to laxity in moral
conduct. While this basic attitude of the Buddha remained unmodified throughout
his teaching, Mahavira appears to have allowed a relaxation in conformity with
his realistic outlook in the interest of a dispassionate estimation of the
worth of those speculations and the discovery of the cause of their origin.
Consequently whereas the followers of the Buddha were interested more in the
repudiation of the current antipodal doctrines than in their proper
appreciation, the followers of Mahavira devoted their energies to a proper
evaluation of these concepts with a view to finding out a solution of those
contradictory views. This led to the origin of the Madhyama pratipat (the
middle path which eschewed both the antithetical alternatives) of the Buddhists
on the one hand, and the philosophy of anekanta (non-absolutism which attempted
at synthesising those alternatives into a comprehensive notion) of the Jainas
on the other.

The Three Stages :

Three distinct stages of development of the doctrine of anekanta are
discernible in the early Jaina Agamas.

a)Vibhajyavada

Vibhajyavada
which is perhaps the earliest phase of the doctrine is found mentioned in the
Sutrakrtanga (1.14.22) where a monk is asked to explain things through the
principle of division of issues (vibhajjavayam ca viyagarejja). The Bhagavati
Sutra provides many an illustration where a question is dealt with in this way.
On being asked by Gautama whether a person who says that he has taken the vow
of desisting from committing injury to all sentient beings is a bonafide
observer of the vow or a malafide imposter, Mahavira replied that if such
person was incapable of distinguishing between the sentient and the insentient,
or between the mobile and immobile living beings, he is the latter, but otherwise
he is a true observer of the vow (op. cit., VII. 2.27). Similarly, on being
asked by Jayanti which of the two, viz. slumber and wakefulness, was
preferable, he replied that for the sinful, it was the former, while for the
virtuous the latter (XII2.2/53-55). These and similar instances which are in
galore in our text are obviously case of answer by division. It should be noted
here that the alternative answers to the divided issues are sometimes
introduced in the Agama by the particle siya (Skt, syad) meaning "in a
certain reference". The expression siyavaya in the Sutrakrtanga (1.14.19)
: na yasiyavaya viyagrejja one should not explain anything without taking
resort to siyavaya (Skt. syadvada, that is the principle of conditional
predication)' also deserves mention. It is obviously synonymous with the
expression vibhajjavaya noted above and is the forerunner of the syadvada of
later times. This also confirms our vies of vibhajyavada as the earliest phase
of anekantavada.

b)The Nayas :

The
nayas (standpoints) constitute the second stage of the evolution of the concept
of anekanta. The earliest and most important way of judging the nature of
things was to consider them under four heads viz., dravya (substance) ksetra
(space). kala (time) and bhava (mode). Thus in the Bhagwati Sutra (II.1.45),
the loka (inhabited cosmos) is considered as finite in substance and space, but
infinite in time and modes. There were also other heads such as guna (op.cit.,
II. 10.126), bhava (XIX. 9.102) and samsthana (XIV. 7.80) which were analogous
to bhava. But all these heads were not called nayas. The expressions used in
connection with the nayas were however dravya and paryaya (equivalent of
bhava). The material atoms are thus stated to be eternal qua dravya
(davvatthayae) and non-eternal qua paryaya (pajjavehim, XIV. 4-49-50) and the
souls are characterised as eternal qua dravya (davvatthayae) and non-eternal
qua bhava (bhavatthayae, VII. 2.58-59). Another pair of nayas, viz. avvocchitti
naya (Skt avyucchitti-naya, the standpoint of non interception) and
vocchitti-naya (Skt. vyucchitti-naya, the standpoint of interception) are also
mentioned in the Bhagavati Sutra (VII. 3.93-94). Thus the infernal beings are
eternal from the standpoint of non-interception (of their existence as souls),
but they are non-eternal from the standpoint of interception (of their present
state of being infernal after the expiry of that form of existence). A third
pair of nayas is also mentioned in the same text, viz. vavahariya-naya (Skt.
vyavaharikanaya, the popular standpoint), and necchaiva-naya (naiscayikanaya,
the factual or scientifie standpoint). Thus from the popular standpoint the
drone is black in colour, but factually or scientifically speaking, it is
possessed of all the five colours, viz. black, blue, red, yellow and white (op.
cit, XVIII. 6.108).

c)Saptabhangi:

As the
third stage of development of the concept of anekanta, we find a primitive
saptabhangi and syadvada in the Bhagavati Sutra XII. 10.211-226. Here the
things are judged under the categories of `self' (aya Skt. atman) and
`not-self' (no-aya Skt. noatman). An object is characterized as `self' in some
respect (siya aya), `not-self' in some respect (siya no-aya), and
`indescribable , that is, both self and not-self' in some respect (siya
avattavvam aya ti ya no-aya tiya). These three attributes are predicated of an
object, noncomposite or composite, respectively from the standpoints of
existent characters, non-existent characters, and existent-cum-non-existent
characters. In the case of the objects that are noncomposite (for instance, a
monad), the attributes are only three in number, viz. self, not-self and
indescribable. Here `indescribable' means the impossibility of the object being
spoken of or described exclusively as `self' or `not-self', because of the same
object being both (self and non-self) at the same time. These three attributes
however, become six in the case of a dyad (a composite body of two
space-points) as follows : (1) self, (2) not-self, (3) indescribable, (4) self
and non-self (one attribute for each space-point), (5) self and indescribable
(one attribute for each space-point). (6) not-self and indescribable (one
attribute for each space-point). These six ways again become seven in the case
of a triad (a composite body of three space points) in the following way : (1)
to (6) as above, and (7) self, not self and indescribable (one attribute for
each of the three space points). Here the fourth, fifth and sixth ways have
each two more subdivisions. Thus the fourth, voz. self and not-self, has the
following two additional subdivisions-(1) self (for two space-points) and
not-self (for the remaining one space point). The fifth and sixth ways also
have similar subdivisions. The text referred to above gives the divisions and subdivisions
of the tetrad, pentad and hexad also. The basic ways however do never exceed
the number seven as in the case of the triad, though the number of subdivisions
gradually go up on account of the various possible combinations of the
space-points. The basic seven ways enumarated above are the prototypes of later
seven bhangas of what is called saptabhangi (the doctrine of sevenfold
predication). What is to be carefully noticed in this connection is the fact
that according to the Bhagavati Sutra, the joint predication of the attributes
`self' and `not-self' to a monad is not possible because the monad has only one
space-point. Such predication is only possible of a dyad which has two
space-points. Similarly, the simultaneous predication of three attributes is
only possible in the case of triad which has three space-points. The
implication is that the joint predication of two contradictory attributes to
the same space-points is purely a case of `indescribability' and not an
illustration of a dual predication of self and notself. The dual predication is
meaningful only if the object has two parts in order that each individual
attribute may find its own accommodation. The later Jaina philosophers,
however, did not find any difficulty in such predication, and they made the
dual predication (`is' and `is not' used by them in place of `self' and
`not-self' ) irrespective of the noncomposite or composite character of the
object. Some of them also interchanged the positions of the third and fourth
attributes.

The anuyogadvaras and niksepas

The early Jaina philosphers were fond of explaining things according to
predefined lists of heads. Such heads were called anuyogadaras, doors of
disquisition 20 (or 14) marganasthanas 24 (12 or 14) jivasthanas and 14
gunasthans may be quoted as illustrations of such lists. There are, however,
other lists which had direct philosophical significance. Umasvati, in his
Tattvarthadhigamasutra, 1,7,8,16,26 has given such lists, which can mostly be
traced back to the Jain Agamas. These doors of disquisition played an important
role in the evolution of the doctrine of anekanta. The Jaina doctrine of four
niksepas is the final outcome of the speculations concerning the doors of
disquisition. The niksepas were many, but finally they were reduced to four
nama, sthapana, dravya and bhava, (Tattvarthandhigamasutra, 1.5). The following
dictum of the Anuyogadvarasutra, 8, deserves mention. One should fully apply to
a subject whatever nikesepas are known about that subject; and to those
subjects whose niksepas are not known, one should apply the four (viz. nama,
sthapana, dravya and bhava). The Jaina thinkers took a very wide view of the
subjects they took up for discussion and employed the niksepas as the media for
the determination of the meaning of words involved in such discussion. The
doctrine of anekanta owed much to the precise definition of the connotation of
the technical terminology employed in the evaluation of antithetical doctrines,
and the niksepas fulfilled this task as auxiliaries to the nayas.

In non-Jaina Thought

Let us now see whether the elements of the anekanta way of thinking are
there in the non-Jaina schools of thought that flourished in those days.

a)The Vedic thought :

The
sceptical outburst of the Vedic seer in Rgveda. I. 164.4 : Who has seen that
the Boneless One bears the Bony, when he is first born, where is the breath,
the blood and soul of the earth, who would approach the wise man to ask this
(ko dadarsa prathamam, jayamanam asthanvantam yad anastha bibharti, bhumya asur
asrgatma kvasti, ko vidvamsam upagat pratsum etal) ? poses a problem to be
solved in mystic experience, or through anekanta or rejected as absurd and
insoluble. The scepticism of the Nasadiya hymn (op. cit., X. 129) has also a
similar tone. In the Upanisads we find rational thinkers as well as mystics.
The Uddalaka (Chandogya, VI. 2 1,2) was partly a rationalist philosopher who
advanced logical proof for the reality of Being (sat), and partly an uncritical
empiricist when he ascribes thought to that Being to multiply and procreate and
produce heat (tejas) which produces water (ap), and water food (annam).
Yajnavalkya Brhadaranyaka, (II.4.12-14=IV.5 13-15) asserts that the self cannot
be known as it is the subject, and whatever is known is necessarily an object.
This may be called rational mysticism. This background of scepticism and
rational mysticism was responsible for the Jaina and Buddhist patterns of
thought that emerged and are found recorded in the Ardhamagadhi and Pali
canons. We have made a brief survey of the Jaina way of thinking and shall now
see its parallel in early Buddhism, followed by a similar study of the Yoga and
Nyaya schools.

b)The Buddhist
Thought :

The
Buddha calls himself a vibhajyavadin(vibhajjavado.....aham.....naham ekamsavado-I am an analyst or
propounder of my views by division of issues, and not one who takes a partial
view of things - Majjhima Nikaya, II, 469). When the Buddha is asked for his
opinion whether the house-holder is an observer of the right path, he says that
it is not possible to give a categorical answer to the question inasmush as the
house-holder with wrong faith (miccha-patipanno) does not follow the right
path, while one with right faith (samma-patipanno) definitely does so. This
vibhjyavada is not essentially different from that of the Jainas.

In the
Suttanipata p. 396, we find people stuck to their individual truths or opinions
(pacceka-saccesu puthu nivittha). The Udana, pp. 143-145, gives the parable of
the blind men and the elephant. Ten blind persons touch various parts of the
elephant and give ten conflicting accounts based on their experience of the ten
parts which they happened to come into contact with. Each of them took the part
for the whole and as such they were all with their perceptions vitiated and
partial (ekangadassino). The parable is suggestive of a definite stage in the
evolution of Buddha's thought, which approached too near to the thought pattern
of Mahavira to be able to maintain its distinct individual character. The
ultimate thought pattern of the Buddha, however, is to be judged by his
attitude to the ten or fourteen famous avyakatas (indeterminables) mentioned in
Majjhima Nikaya, II, pp. 107-113 and 176-183, and Candrakirtis' Prasannapads,
p. 446, Poussin's Edition.

c)The Yoga School :

The
Yogabhasya (IV. 33; for the Buddhist counterpart of four kinds of questions,
see Digha Nikaya, III, p. 179, and Anguttara Nikaya, II, p. 84) classifies
questions under three heads : (i) there are questions which admit of a clear
definitive answer (ekanta-vacaniya), (ii) there are questions which are
answerable only by division (vibhajya-vacaniya), and (iii) there are questions
which are unanswerable (avacaniya). The question 'shall everybody be reborn
after death', is vibhyajya-vacaniya, that is, answerable by division. The
person who has experienced the distinction between spirit and matter will not
be born, the others however would take rebirth. The Yoga philosopher there
opens for himself the way to the anekanta type of thinking, which, however, he
does not pursue any further. The Sankhya-Yoga doctrine of parinama (change )
again is essentially a vindication of the concept of anekanta, barring its
insistence on theabsolute
pre-existence of the effect in the cause. The Sankhya-Yoga conception of purusa
as an absolutely unchanging entity is of course an exception.

d)The Nyaya School :

In the
early Nyaya literature also we see discussions which are representative of the
anekanta way of thinking. Nagarjuna's criticism of the Nyaya categories of
pramana and prameya provoked answers from the author of the Nyayadarsana, and
also Vatsyayana, the author of the Nyayabhasya, which take resort to the
non-absolutist method for refuting the Madhyamika philosopher's attactks.
Nagarjuna's argument that the concepts of pramana and prameya, being
interdependent, cannot establish themselves, is countered by pointing out that
there is no logical inconsistency in viewing the same entity both as pramana
and prameya. The Nyayadarsana, II. 1.16, cites the example of a measure (tula)
which is usually employed to measure other things, but on occasion it is itself
measured by another article of a standard weight. So there is nothing absurd if
the same object is conceived as both pramana and prameya. Vatsyayana, in this connection,
gives a very lucid exposition of the nomenclature of pramana, prameya, pramata
and pramiti. The atman (self, soul ) is called a prameya because of its being
an object of knowledge, but it is also a pramata because of its being the
subject exercising the function of knowing; the intellect qua the instrument of
commotion is a pramana, (while as an object of cognition it is a prameya) and
it is simply a pramiti when it is exercising none of the functions of'knowing' or 'being known' (atma tavad
upalabdhivisaysayatvat prameya paripathitah, uplabdhau svatantryat pramata;
buddhir upalabdhisadhanatvat pramanam, upalabdhivisayatvat prameyam;
ubhayabhavat tu pramitih). The expression vibhajya vacaniyah is also found in
the bhasya on II. 1.19 There is thus unambiguously a trend of Nyaya thought,
which takes the school a great way towards the non-absolutist approach of the
Jainas. It is interesting to note in this connection that Udayana, in his
Atmatattvaviveka (pp. 530-1 Bibliotheca Indica Calcutta, 1939), imagines a
simpleton who sees, for the first time in his life, a tusker at the gate of a
royal palace and conjectures; Is it a mass of darkness eating white radish, or
a piece of cloud pouring out white cranes and roaring, or the proverbial benign
friend waiting at the royal gate, or the shadow of what is lying down on the
ground, and counters his conjectures by arguments which are equally fanciful;
another simpleton makes appearance at this point and persuades him of the
futility of all thought about the nature of things. Udayana identifies the
Buddhist absolutists with these simpletons and rejects their speculations as
pure imaginations unworthy of respectable treatment. One should neither go
astray in imagination and wishful thinking, nor give up in despair all attempts
at discovering the full truth from whatever partial glimpses of it one may be
able to get. The Jaina philosopher is in perfect agreement with such trends of
thought as are conductive to the advancement of knowledge and revelation of
truth, and fully supports the realistic approach of Udayana to the problem of
reality.

We have been till now discussing the stages of evolution of the
doctrine of anekanta in the Agamas and its parallels in the literature and
schools contemporaneous with them. Now we have arrived at the transition period
when the Jaina thinkers were establishing contacts with their counterparts in
the alien systems of thought and composing treatises in the Sanskrit language
which was then the only powerful medium of communication between the
intelligent. The Prakrit was also of course, along with the Apabhramsa, an
important medium. But its influence was gradually waning, although Siddhasena
Divakara's Sanmati and the works of Kundakunda and Jinabhadra, written in
Prakrit in those days were monumental treatises of abiding value and profound
interest.

a)Umasvati
:

Among
Jaina authors of the period of transition, Umasvati stands first and foremost.
His Tattvarthadhigamasutra with Bhasya is a compendium of the Agamas, which
leaves nothing of philosophical importance out of consideration. Its
comprehensive thoroughness can be compared with that of the Buddhist
Abhidharmakosa (with Bhasya) of Vasubandhu. In addition to giving a summary of
the traditional lore, Umasvati gives a critical shape to the anekantavada
through his exposition of the nayas, niksepas and the nature of the sat (a
real), and dravya (substance). He also introduces the elements of saptabhangi
in his own way which is reminiscent of the same in the Bhagavati Sutra
mentioned above. Umasvati is not much concerned with the non-Jaina views. He
raises the question whether the nayas are the proponents of alien philosophies
or independent upholders of opposition, inspired by diverse opinions, and
answers that they are only different estimates (literally, concepts derived
from different angles of vision) of the object known (Bhasya, I.35 : kim ete
tantrantariya vadina ahosvit svatantra eva codakapaksagrahino matibhedena
vipradhavita iti. Atrocyate, naite tantrantariya napi svatantra matibhedena
vipradhavitah, jneyasya tv arthasya' dhyavasayantarany etani). It is also
asserted in this connection that there is no contradiction between them, just
as there is none between different cognition’s of the same object by different
instruments of knowledge, such as perception, inference, comparison and the
words of a reliable person (yatha va partyaksanumanopamanaptavacanaih
pramanaireko' rthah pramiyate svavisayaniyamat, na ca ta vipratipattayo
bhavanti tadvan nayavada iti). This is followed by an elaborate description of
the nayas and their relationship with the epistemological system of early
Jainism. Umasvati's definition of the sat (a real) as consisting of
origination, cessation and continuity (V. 29 : utpada-vyayadhrauvya-yuktam sat)
gives the fundamentals of anekantavada in a nutshell. The dravya (substance) is
defined as `what is possessed of qualities and modes' (V. 37 : guna-paryayavad
dravyam), indicating the relation of identity-cum- difference between the
substance and the modes (including qualities). The nitya (permanent) is defined
as `what does not lapse from being and would not do so at any time' (Bhasya,
I.30 : yet sato bhavan na vyeti na vyesyati tan nityam iti). All these concepts
are brought by Umasvati (Bhasya, I 31) under four heads - dravyastika,
matrkapadastika, utpannastika and paryayastika which appear to stand
respectively for the view points of substance, categories of substance, the
immediate present, and the past-cum-future modes. From the first view point,
negation does not exist (asannama nasty eva dravyastikasya), because it takes
not of only what is existent and positive in character. Negation appears with
the classification of the substance into matrkapadas (categories), and
consequently here we get both affirmation and negation, (sat and asat), as
classification implies both affirmation (inclusion of lower categories under a
higher category) as well as negation (mutual exclusion of the categories). The
utpannastika, being concerned with the immediate present alone is also the
negation of the past and the future and as such gives rise to the duality of
affirmation and negation. Similarly, the paryayastika, which is the viewpoint
of the past and the future, is the negation of the present, and as such gives
rise to the same duality of affirmation and negation. In the last three cases
we also get a third mode which cannot be described either as sat or asat (na
vacyam sad iti, asad iti va). This is the third bhanga called `indescribable'.
Umasvati concludes this discussion with the statement-desadesena
vikalpayitavyam iti- which may imply the remaining four bangas of the
saptabhangi.

b)Siddhasena
Divakara :

The
application of the anekanta principle to ontological problems raised in the
different school of philosophy was made, most probably, for the first time by
Siddhasena. This was done by means of the nayas "Kapil's (Sankhya)
philosophy", says he, "is a statement from the dravyastika
(substatial) standpoint, whereas the Buddha's is a variety of pure paryayastika
(modal) one Kanada composed his treatise from the standpoint of both (these
nayas) : nevertheless, that remained a false doctrine, as the views propounded
therein, each arrogating exclusive validity to itself, are independent of each
other. (Sanmati, III. 48-49). On the varieties of nayas and their relation to
philosophical views Siddhasena says that the former are as many as there are
ways of speech, and the later as many as there are nayas (III. 47) :

javaiya
vayanavaha tavaiya ceva homti nayavaya

javaiya
nayavaya tavaiya ceva parasamaya.

His
distinction between vyanjanaparyaya and arthaparyaya also deserves notice. As
soon as the substance is subjected to division, the sphere of modes starts
functioning (III.29). Such modes are twofold-(1) vyanjana modes and artha
modes. The former are expressible in words, while the latter are not. Thus an
object is called `man' so long as it continues to be so, though undergoing
change every moment. Here `man-hood' is a vyanjanaparyaya which is expressible
by the word `man' , while the changes that occur in him every moment are
arthaparyayas which cannot be expressed in words. An object thus is affable as
well as ineffable (saviyappanivviyappam, 1.35). In Sanmati, I.35-40 Siddhasena
enumerates the seven bhangas almost exactly in the fashion of the Bhagavati
Sutra mentioned above. The full credit of interpreting the Agamas for a new
generation and giving original material for fresh thinking goes to Siddhasena
who acted as a link between the orthodox past and the progressive future. This
is indeed the true function of the propounder of a faith according to
Siddhasena himself. "The person who acts as a logician", says he,
"in the domain of logic, and as a scripturist in the domain of scripture
is a true protagonist of his faith; a person acting otherwise is an
impostor".

jo
heuvayapakkhammi heuo agame ya agamio.

so
sasamayaopannavao siddhamtavirahao anno..

c)Mallavadin :

The
Dvadasaranayacakra of Mallavadin is an encyclopaedia of philosophy, where all
schools of thought prevalent in those days are critically examined one by one
and superseded by their rivals, thus making a complete circle with twelve
spokes connecting the hub with the twelve sections of the rim, each section
representing particular doctrines taken up for discussion. The doctrines
discussed are linked to the traditional seven nayas in a novel plan of the
wheel of twelve nayas viz. (1) vidhih, (2) vidhervidhih, (3)
vidhervidhiniyamam, (4) vidherniyamah (5) vidhiniyamam, (6)
vidhervidhiniyamasya vidhih (7) vidhiniyamasya vidhinyamam, (8) vidhiniyamasya
niyamah (9) niyamah, (10) niyamasya vidhih, (11) niyamasya vidhiniyamam, and
(12) niyamasya niyamah. The book starts with the common-sense popular view of
things, represented by the first naya called vidhi (vidhivrttis tavad
yathalokagraham eva vastu, p. 11). How does it concern us whether there is a
cause, or an effect : who can make an end of debate on such issues (pp. 34-35)
? Mallavadin here quotes Sanmati, I. 28, in support of his contention. The
epistemological position of Dignaga is here criticised as going against the
common-sense view of things. Vidhi stands for `injunction' as in the Mimamsa
school. It is only the injection to do some thing that is valuable and also
desirable (arthyo hi kriyaya evopadesah, p. 45). The second naya called
vidhi-vidhi stands for the particulars in favour of the universal oneness. The
absolutist doctrines are consequently brought within the purview of this naya.
The third naya literally means affirmation-cum-negation of the positive entity.
The Sankhya doctrine of prakrti as subservient to purusa, and the doctrines of
divine creator and the created world represent this naya. The fourth naya,
viz., vidher niyamah appears to indicate the restriction of absolute freedom of
both the purusa and the karman in the evolution of the worldly process. The
other nayas similarly bring within their purview the doctrines that were
prevalent in those days in order to evaluate their merits and demerits. About a
dozen and a half doctrines are thus discussed and refuted in the treatise which
brought for its author the encomium "anu Mallavadinam tarkikah" (all
logicians are inferior to Mallavadin) from Hemacandra, the omniscient of the
Kali age.

d)Jinabhadra :

The
activity of Mallavadin was further carried by Jinabhadra who, in his
Visesavasyaka-Bhasya, gave a critical account of the nayas based on his deep
and extensive learning in the Agamas. Here he brings within purview the
problems of the general and the particular, substance and modes, word and
meaning, ultimate truth and practical truth (niscaya-naya and vyavahara-naya).
His treatment of the problem of niksepa is thorough and penetrating. An
evaluation of the non-Jaina philosophical views is also made by him in the
section called ganadhara-vada and nihnavavada.

e)Kundakunda :

A new
trend of thought was developed by Kundakunda in his Samayasara, although his
Pancastikaya and Pravacanasara generally uphold the traditional positions. His
treatment of the problems of dravya, guna, paryaya, and also utpada, vyaya,
dhrauvya, is deep and critical. But in his Samayasara, Kundakunda develops a
new idea which appears influenced by Yogacara idealism and also Vedantic
absolutism. The soul is the cause of what is happening within itself and has no
essential relationship with what is happening in the world outside. The reverse
is also true. This cleavage between soul and matter is explained through
niscaya-naya and vyavahara-naya, the former being the standpoint of truth, and
the latter of untruth. The traditional interpretation of vyavahara-naya as the
popular or practical viewpoint and of niscaya-naya as the factual or scientific
standpoint is radically changed. Scholars have designated this new meaning of
the two nayas as the `mystic pattern' as distinguished from the traditional
interpretation which they call the `non-mystic pattern'. The works of
Kundakunda contain both these patterns, but the `mystic pattern' is the
predominant theme of the Samayasara. In the philosophy of Kundakunda thus the
concept of anekanta acquires a new meaning in that a new vista is now opened up
for the development of the concept of avaktavya (the third bhanga of the
saptabhangi) into a mystic realisation of the nature of truth in its fullness.

These
great thinkers have now paved the way for the advent of the classical period
which is the subject matter of the next section.

The Classical Period : Samantabhadra, Haribhadra, Akalanka,
Vidyananda and Others

The transition period was followed by a period of intense critical
thinking when the Jaina logicians headed by Akalanka, composed treatises which
were of lasting value in the field of logic and epistemology. Sarvarhasiddhi of
Pujyapada Devanandi and the Aptamimamsa of Samantabhadra provided a firm
ontological base to these thinkers who were responsible for the classical
period. We here propose to give a brief account of the doctrine of anekanta as
treated by some of these authors.

a)Samantabhadra :

The
Aptamimamsa of Samantabhadra provides a fertile ground for the doctrine of
anekanta to flourish. The essence of anekanta is envisaged as lying in the
solution of the contradictory attributes of features exhibited by an
ontological doctrine, or an ethical principle, or an epistemological theory.
Each one of the two members of pairs of contradictory attributes of features is
critically judged with a view to exposing the difficulties that beset the
concept, and then a synthesis of the two is offered. The Aptamimamsa opens with
a vindication (verses 1-6) of the possibility of the existence of the
omniscient. In verse 8 it asserts that the ethics of good and bad deeds and the
existence of life hereafter cannot be justified without accepting the principle
of anekanta. The abolutistic conception of an unchanging soul is repugnant to
the possibility of moral evolution heading to emancipation. The doctrine of
pure affirmation (bhavaikanta) denies negation and consequently fails to
explain the fact of diversity which is so glaring and patent ( verse 9). The
doctrine of pure negation or nihilism (abhavaikanta), on the other hand, will
deprive the nihilist's arguments of their validity (verse 12). The critics of
syadvada cannot again accept affirmation-cum-negation as the nature of the real
in order to avoid these difficulties, because that would be tantamount to the
acceptance of the doctrine of anekanta on their part. Nor is the position of
absolute inexpressibility' (avacyataikanta) a tenable hypothesis, because in
that case the proposition “the real is inexpressible”will be an illogical assertion on account of the absolutist
character of the inexpressibility (verse 13) :

virodhan
nobhyaikatmyam syadvada-nyaya-vidvisam

avacyataikante
py uktir navacyam iti yujyate.

Our
text (verses 14-16) then formulates a correct ontological position by asserting
that a real is definitely existent from one viewpoint 'definitely non-existent'
from another, 'definitely existent-cum-non-existent' from a third, and also
definitely inexpressible' from a fourth viewpoint, though none of these
viewpoints should be considered as absolute and exclusive; one should accept a
real as (i) 'existent definitely' (sadeva) in the framework of its own
substance, space, time and modes, and also as (ii) 'non-existent definitely'
(asadeva) in the framework of alien substance, space, time and modes, because
otherwise it would be impossible to determine the nature of the real; it should
moreover be accepted as (ii) possessed of the dual nature of 'existence' and
'non-existence' in succession, and also as (iv) `inexpressible' on account of
the failure of the linguistic device to express the pair of contradictory
attributes simultaneously; the remaining three (5-7) bhangas are obtained by
combining the fourth with the first three in their proper context. Here the
dialectic of sevenfold predication (saptabhangr) has been clearly defined by
Samantabhadra by assigning the fourth position to the attribute of`inexpressibility' instead of the third
assigned to it in the Bhagavati Sutra andalso by Sidhasena. The Aptamimamsa now explains the saptabhang of
'existence' and'non-existence' (verse
17-20). 'Existence' is necessarily concomitant, in the self same entity with
its opposite viz. non-existence, being its adjunct (visesana counterpart), even
as homogeneity is necessarily concomitant with hetero-geneity (intention to
assert difference); similarly, 'non-existence' is necessarily concomitant, in
the selfsame entity, with its opposite (viz. existence); being its adjunct
(visesana, counterpart), even as heterogeneity is con-comitant with homogeneity
(intention to assert identity) :

astitvam
pratisedhyenavinabhavyekadharimni

visesanatvat
sadharmyam yatha bhedavivaksaya

nastitvam
pratisedhyenavinabhavyekadharmini.

viseanatvad
vaidharmyam yatha bhedavivaksaya

An
entity is moreover of the nature of positum as well as negatum
(vidheya-pratisedhyatma), exactly as the same attribute of the subject (minor
term) of an inference may be a valid as well as an invalid probans in
accordance with the nature of the probandum to be proved by it. This is the
third bhanga of the Saptabhang of 'existence' and 'non-existence'. The
remaining four bhangas are also to be understood in their proper perspectives.
Samantabhadra now explains the nature of a real in the light of this anekanta
dialectic. The real must be an entity which is not determined by any exclusive
property or any absolute character. Only that which is undefined by a positive
or a negative attribute exclusively is capable of exercising the causal
efficiency which is the sole criterion of reality (verse 21 : evam
vidhi-nisedhabhyam anavasthitam arthakrt). The Buddist fluxist as well as the
Vedantic monist are jointly criticised here as upholding ontological views,
which, being truncated and partial, fail to explain the real in its
comprehensives. Neither an absolutely static, nor a radically dynamic object is
capable of exercising the causal efficiency in spite of all other conditions,
external and internal, being fulfilled. Samantabhadra (verse 22) applies the
anekanta dialectic in constructing the real as a totality of infinite number of
attributes (dharmas), each of which represents the whole entity relegating the
others to the status of mere attributes of that entity :

dharme
dharme 'nya evartho dharmino' nantadharminah

angtive
'nyatamantasya sesantanam tadangata.

He
then gives a general instruction to his readers, proficient in the application
of the nayas to follow the same method of saptabhang to discuss the problems of
'one and many', and the like, that were prevalent in those days. In fact, he
himself discusses the following additional problems in the text under review :
identity and differences, permanence and flux, cause and effect, reason and
scripture, free will and determinism, idealism & realism, bondage &
emancipation.

b)Haribhadra :

The
Anekantajayapataka is an important contribution of Haribhadra to the field of
anekanta dialectic, which brings within its purview the problems of existence
and non-existence, permanence and flux, universal and particular, and
describable and indescribable. Among the doctrines refuted in the treatise,
ksanikavada and vijnanavada occupy a prominent position. All these refutations
are made strictly fromthe standpoint
of Jaina philosophy and sometimes they go to a depth hitherto unreached by his
predecessors. The comparative outlook of Haribhadra enabled him to unfold the
hidden potentialities of the anekanta principle and apply them in the interest
of a comprehensive view of the problems, epistemological and ontological, that
exercised the minds of those days.

c)Akalanka :

The
Astasati (commentary on the Aptamimamsa) of Akalanka provides a most
penetrating insight into the niceties ofthe doctrine of anekanta. His defence of the doctrine is unique and
perhaps unsurpassed by any predecessor or successor. He unfolds the thoughts of
Samantabhadra in a manner which is comparable to that ofDharmakirti in respect of Dignaga. The
ksanabhangavada of the Buddhists as well as their vijnanavada are vehemently
criticised by Akalanka. His contributions to the field of Jaina logic and
epistemology are most original and unique, and they set up a norm for the
posterity to follow and emulate.

d)Vidyananda :

The
Astasahasri (the subcommentary on the Astasati of Akalanka) of Vidyananda is
perhaps the last word on the doctrine of anekanta. His criticism of the
non-Jaina schools is more realistic and thorough. He brings a number of new
topics and schools under the purview of his refutation. Vidyananda's exposition
of nays & niksepas in his Tattvarthasloka-vartika throws new light on these
subjects.

Among
the successors of Vidyananda, who made important contributions to the doctrine
of anekanta, the following authors occupy a position of importance :
Prabhacandra, Abhayadeva, Vadideva and Yasovijaya. The reader is referred to
the accounts of the life and works of these authors given elsewhere in this
encyclopaedia.

2 Hil, P.181 : “It is the perfect knowledge of things taken from all
possible standpoints. Thus a things may be, may not be, both may of may not be,
etc. according as we take it from one or the other standpoint.”

1 I may draw attention to the similarity of these ideas to the
concept of an "individual element "in relation to the
"population"in modern
statistical theory.

2 There is one well-known school of Buddhist philosophy which holds
that reality consists of an infinite sequence of "atomistic" or
completely independent "moments" which have no connexion with one
another.

3 On the other hand, the monistic philosophy of the Vedantist holds
that the Absolute transcends all change.

1 The pharase "fluxist" requires a little explanation. The
Buddhist school of philosophy(to which
reference has been made in footnote) is known as ksana-vada which means
literally the theory or philosophy of "moments" It has been
translated by S. Mookerjee as "fluxist" which, however, does not seem
to be entirely happpy.

3 It may be noted that a single or unique individual as such (that is
without any relation to a "population" or "universe") has
no meaning in modern statistical or probability theory.

1 The jaina view insists on the inadequacy of formal logic by
introducing the concept of indefiniteness or indetermination or uncertainty as
an inalienable character of reals; but also emphasizes the possibility of
defining reals in terms of existent or non-existent taken together.

1 I think it is also proper to note the occasional occurrence of
certain intriguing phrases in the mediaeval period of Indian logic As an
example, I am giving below what I myself heard about 20 years ago from the late
Dr. Sir. Brajendra Nath Seal (the great Indian savant and the author of
“History of Positive Sciences of the Hindus’ and other works who died in 1938).
Dr. Seal told me that in a mediaeval Indian treatise there is a discussion
about the practice of giving alms to Brahmins; and the question is raised
whether the receipients of the gifts are always deserving persons. It is stated
in reply that the practice of giving alms can be supported because “only ten
out of hundred receipients are underserving”. I do not know whether the above
phrase is to be interpreted as a simple statement about the number or
proportion of recipients who were found to be underserving or whether the
phrase has any implications of a statistical or probilistic nature. Dr. Seal’s
view was that the above phrase had some probabilistic significance but only in
a latent or implied (but not explicit or developed) form. As the subject of
mediaeval Indian logic is not my special field of study I have not had the
opportunity of making more detailed enquiries. I am, however, mentioning this
point because it may be worth while making some further researches in this
matter.

1 I have deliberately chossen a wordwith the same root (Latin vox = Sanskrit vak ) as avakta.